badlatitude

This is An Example of Why We Don't Trust Gun Nutterz

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

That's all the reason to buy moar gunz.  BL, I'd go back to OR and get your SCAR if I were you.  You might need it and be a hero when the goatfucker opens up in your hometown.

Wow.  Racist much?

Share this post


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

That's all the reason to buy moar gunz.  BL, I'd go back to OR and get your SCAR if I were you.  You might need it and be a hero when the goatfucker opens up in your hometown.

So I can join your race war? No thanks Jeffie, there won't be any militias rising up to save America or white womanhood, it just won't happen, except in your next fantasy.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeffie may be right after all.

gun.PNG

"Spike’s Tactical, a gun company, previewed an ad on their Facebook page that depicts four heavily armed white men standing on the opposite side of a barrier, facing down a group of masked, unarmed “antifa” protesters. The ad mentions the sites of several political clashes that took place last year, including Berkeley, Portland, Boston, and Charlottesville, where neo-Nazis arrived at the rally heavily armed last August, and where a white man allegedly murdered a peaceful protester with his car. 

“Not today Antifa,” a tagline to the violence-teasing ad declares. "Antifa," it should be noted, is a style of protest used by leftists, and not any kind of formal organization with a hierarchy. 

The ad—which anti-fascists worry is fueling a desire to murder leftists—was run in conjunction with a clothing company called Pipe Hitters Union, who also posted the same version of the ad on their Facebook page. Newsweek reached out to both companies for a comment about the ad but did not immediately receive a response. It should be noted, of course, that owning a gun is not tethered to any specific political ideology, and as a result, some gun owners were unhappy with the post." http://www.newsweek.com/not-today-antifa-gun-company-ad-threatens-leftists-assault-rifles-774941?piano_t=1

However, leftists do have some experience running Nazis out of town. So no one is really worried.

LULLJy.jpg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

It should be noted, of course, that owning a gun is not tethered to any specific political ideology

It should also be noted that banning and confiscating guns is tethered to a specific political party.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Uncooperative Tom said:

It should also be noted that banning and confiscating guns is tethered to a specific political party.

Yes, Tom, One party is more courageous than the other.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Yes, Tom, One party is more courageous than the other.

You'd think that admirers of courageous grabberz would show solidarity by doing things like, you know, getting rid of your assault weapons.

But then,

On 11/9/2017 at 6:08 AM, LB 15 said:

Here you go boys - the victims from Texas. Keep the image of these people's faces in your minds as you stoke your precious tools.

texas-church-shooting-victims-comp-24_b626247baa80a3f9e64b3b896fd65890.nbcnews-fp-1200-800.jpg

But hey their deaths are a small price to pay so you keep living your fantasy. 

Oops. Posts like that one are supposed to only be directed at assault weapon owners who say bad things about Democrat gun bans and confiscation programs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You'd think that admirers of courageous grabberz would show solidarity by doing things like, you know, getting rid of your assault weapons.

But then,

I like my Second Amendment rights and will continue to resist the Nutterz attempts to dislodge me from my rights. I already said I would voluntarily surrender my weapons, my job now is to make sure that you do too.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

I like my Second Amendment rights and will continue to resist the Nutterz attempts to dislodge me from my rights. I already said I would voluntarily surrender my weapons, my job now is to make sure that you do too.

BL = gun nutterz 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2018 at 9:11 AM, badlatitude said:

Shootist Jeff= Gun Grabberz

Tom Ray too. See Tom try to grab your gun in Post 306.

Share this post


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

Looks like gun owners are the responsible ones.

Uncited, eh? No linky gets stinky with your elk. 

We know that Armslist and similar sites generated some problems. Are you certain they cleaned it up?

Quote

Armslist: IN THE BUSINESS, OUTSIDE THE L AW

How unlicensed sellers are flooding the internet with guns.

https://everytownresearch.org/reports/in-the-business-outside-the-law/

 

 

Share this post


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

Uncited, eh? No linky gets stinky with your elk. 

We know that Armslist and similar sites generated some problems. Are you certain they cleaned it up?

 

 

So I followed the link for the Mayor's against Guns and this is their basis (http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2013/felon_seeks_firearm.pdf)

"The investigation reached these conclusions by analyzing a unique data set: the contact information prospective gun buyers voluntarily provided in ‘want-to-buy’ ads they placed on Armslist in search of gun sellers. We examined 13,000 listings posted between February and May 2013, matched contact information to criminal records, and found that at least 1 in 30 would-be gun-buyers had felony or domestic abuse records that barred them from purchasing or possessing guns. And this does not include those prohibited due to serious mental illness, drug abuse, immigration status or other non-criminal prohibiting criteria, which accounted for 25 percent of the sales blocked by a federal NICS check in 2012."

----------

So here's the issue.  The Mayors Against Legal Guns report was generated by looking at people WANTING to buy a gun, not those successfully achieving their goal.   The Government investigation basically points out that this is a "bad basis set" since their efforts showed that just because you WANT to buy a gun, you can't necessarily get one because the gun sellers wouldn't sell a gun to someone whom they believed wasn't following the rules - my guess is because they feared liability.  The two reports together support the idea that Armslist.com really isn't a big deal.  Just because you ask for something, doesn't mean someone is going to sell it too you.  

 

 

Share this post


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

 

So I followed the link for the Mayor's against Guns and this is their basis (http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2013/felon_seeks_firearm.pdf)

"The investigation reached these conclusions by analyzing a unique data set: the contact information prospective gun buyers voluntarily provided in ‘want-to-buy’ ads they placed on Armslist in search of gun sellers. We examined 13,000 listings posted between February and May 2013, matched contact information to criminal records, and found that at least 1 in 30 would-be gun-buyers had felony or domestic abuse records that barred them from purchasing or possessing guns. And this does not include those prohibited due to serious mental illness, drug abuse, immigration status or other non-criminal prohibiting criteria, which accounted for 25 percent of the sales blocked by a federal NICS check in 2012."

----------

So here's the issue.  The Mayors Against Legal Guns report was generated by looking at people WANTING to buy a gun, not those successfully achieving their goal.   The Government investigation basically points out that this is a "bad basis set" since their efforts showed that just because you WANT to buy a gun, you can't necessarily get one because the gun sellers wouldn't sell a gun to someone whom they believed wasn't following the rules - my guess is because they feared liability.  The two reports together support the idea that Armslist.com really isn't a big deal.  Just because you ask for something, doesn't mean someone is going to sell it too you.  

 

 

Good points. But hells bells, supply and demand still applies. 

Share this post


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

 

So I followed the link for the Mayor's against Guns and this is their basis (http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2013/felon_seeks_firearm.pdf)

"The investigation reached these conclusions by analyzing a unique data set: the contact information prospective gun buyers voluntarily provided in ‘want-to-buy’ ads they placed on Armslist in search of gun sellers. We examined 13,000 listings posted between February and May 2013, matched contact information to criminal records, and found that at least 1 in 30 would-be gun-buyers had felony or domestic abuse records that barred them from purchasing or possessing guns. And this does not include those prohibited due to serious mental illness, drug abuse, immigration status or other non-criminal prohibiting criteria, which accounted for 25 percent of the sales blocked by a federal NICS check in 2012."

----------

So here's the issue.  The Mayors Against Legal Guns report was generated by looking at people WANTING to buy a gun, not those successfully achieving their goal.   The Government investigation basically points out that this is a "bad basis set" since their efforts showed that just because you WANT to buy a gun, you can't necessarily get one because the gun sellers wouldn't sell a gun to someone whom they believed wasn't following the rules - my guess is because they feared liability.  The two reports together support the idea that Armslist.com really isn't a big deal.  Just because you ask for something, doesn't mean someone is going to sell it too you.  

 

 

The anti-gun lobby lying or misrepresenting facts????    I'm shocked.  I'm shocked they would do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The anti-gun lobby lying or misrepresenting facts????    I'm shocked.  I'm shocked they would do that.

I don't think they misrepresented facts (they document what they've done) and have lots of 'should and could' qualifiers.  They're accurate.  I just don't  think the facts don't support the particular argument they were trying to make against Armslist.com.

I have no doubt that criminals buy illegal guns.  From what I've read and seen there is quite an infrastructure to support that very market.  Illegal guns are manufactured by tradesmen in poor, underdeveloped countries, smuggled across our borders, and sold to folks that can't get them legally by folks that probably shouldn't have them either!  Guns are stolen, resold, and thrown away in the act of committing crimes.


There's various reports/investigative blogs by people such as vice.com that show this food chain.  People want 'easy solutions' and if shutting down armslist.com would cut the flow of illegal guns, I'd be ok with it but the data doesn't support that argument so I think it's a bogus solution.

What I've personally advocated for is security and security cameras IN THE PARKING LOT - not in the show - of gun shows.  I think this should be a requisite of the gun show organizers and do not consider it a significant risk to my personal privacy.   The 'illegal' transactions aren't happening inside the shows.  Those are just normal folks enjoying their hobby.  The 'illegal' transactions are the well dressed guys prowling the parking lots with $5-10K in cash looking for heavy caliber tactical weapons from people that just paid $1K for em 'cause "they just got there and hadn't had a chance to go inside but saw that really cool gun you were carrying..."  Fucking idiots believe that line of bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2018 at 11:42 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

You'd think that admirers of courageous grabberz would show solidarity by doing things like, you know, getting rid of your assault weapons.

But then,

Oops. Posts like that one are supposed to only be directed at assault weapon owners who say bad things about Democrat gun bans and confiscation programs.

No, they are directed at idiot gun nutz who oppose any rational control of gunz.

Share this post


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

Tom Ray too. See Tom try to grab your gun in Post 306.

Thanks, I don't know how I missed that.

Share this post


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

What I've personally advocated for is security and security cameras IN THE PARKING LOT - not in the show - of gun shows.  I think this should be a requisite of the gun show organizers and do not consider it a significant risk to my personal privacy.   The 'illegal' transactions aren't happening inside the shows.  Those are just normal folks enjoying their hobby.  The 'illegal' transactions are the well dressed guys prowling the parking lots with $5-10K in cash looking for heavy caliber tactical weapons from people that just paid $1K for em 'cause "they just got there and hadn't had a chance to go inside but saw that really cool gun you were carrying..."  Fucking idiots believe that line of bullshit.

I've never heard of such people.

 

19 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

No, they are directed at idiot gun nutz who oppose any rational control of gunz.

Uh oh. You mean you and me, right?

I mean, we both support the Canadian way of regulating squirrel assault weapons like the ones my wife and I own. And we both oppose registration of such guns. Neither of us has a problem with the next generation of citizens in our respective countries being allowed to own them. Or so I thought.

The Canadian/Floridian rules are rational enough for me and have, until now, seemed rational enough to you too. Are you now saying that you want to register all the .22's in Canada and make sure the next generation can't own them?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2018 at 11:52 AM, badlatitude said:

I like my Second Amendment rights and will continue to resist the Nutterz attempts to dislodge me from my rights. I already said I would voluntarily surrender my weapons, my job now is to make sure that you do too.

By "resist" you mean "evade by leaving the state" right?

You're doing your usual great job at making sure you control what others do. Keep right on demonstrating that you think it's OK to possess an assault weapon. I will too. And somewhere, someone with the courage of his convictions will actually support Grabberz in the ballot box AND in his personal choices. And if there's more than one, maybe a bunch of them, maybe they'll win.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Neither of us has a problem with the next generation of citizens...

Every millennial can vote next year. Their demographic easily outweighs old white guys. Tom, you (and Larry Pratt, your spiritual leader) will have a problem with the next generation of citizens. Shannon Watts, not so much.

 

53 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

By "resist" you mean "evade by leaving the state" right?

Your NRA org wanted ibdividual state gun laws. They got them. STFU, big guy. Go Oregon, which recently adopted decent background check parameters.

Share this post


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

Thanks, I don't know how I missed that.

Likewise. Did you snooze off during all the repitition?  Tom demanded your exotic weapons about a dozen times, and demanded my plinker about a hundred. So Tom, our Libertarian icon, has made himself a major, repeat gun grabber. The OCD has locked in, and the King George syndrome too.

Share this post


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

Thanks, I don't know how I missed that.

Likewise. Did you snooze off during all the repitition?  Tom demanded your exotic weapons about a dozen times, and demanded my plinker about a hundred. So Tom, our Libertarian icon, has made himself a major, repeat gun grabber. The OCD has locked in, and the King George syndrome too.

How many times must you two prove that you don't understand the difference between suggesting your elk live by the policies you promote for others and using government force to demand compliance from those who disagree with your gun bans and confiscation programs?

I can't and don't attach criminal penalties to my suggestions.

Your elk can and do attach criminal penalties to your demands, at least for those assault weapon owners who did not have the foresight to buy property in a freer state.

Are either of  you really not bright enough to detect the difference? Not all that surprised that Joe doesn't understand, but you too, badlat?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

How many times must you two prove that you don't understand the difference between suggesting your elk live by the policies you promote for others and using government force to demand compliance from those who disagree with your gun bans and confiscation programs?

I can't and don't attach criminal penalties to my suggestions.

Your elk can and do attach criminal penalties to your demands, at least for those assault weapon owners who did not have the foresight to buy property in a freer state.

Are either of  you really not bright enough to detect the difference? Not all that surprised that Joe doesn't understand, but you too, badlat?

This is a good illustration of the game you play. You mince words to get away from being found wrong; you would make a great White House press secretary. I haven't attached criminal penalties to any of my suggestions, hell, I have never been a legislator before. You and Jeff were the ones demanding I surrender my weapon in a free country or did you forget that?

Share this post


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

This is a good illustration of the game you play. You mince words to get away from being found wrong; you would make a great White House press secretary. I haven't attached criminal penalties to any of my suggestions, hell, I have never been a legislator before. You and Jeff were the ones demanding I surrender my weapon in a free country or did you forget that?

Uh huh. Take no responsibility for the positions you voted for.

Another demonstration of the depth of your conviction on this issue.

I can see why you didn't quote any posts with demands from Jeff or from me. Because you know there are no such posts. Suggesting you act the way you vote is not a demand of any kind. It's just a helpful suggestion. And one that I hope you continue to not follow.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And one that I hope you continue to not follow.

 

That's a demand, dum dum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2018 at 11:52 AM, badlatitude said:

I like my Second Amendment rights and will continue to resist the Nutterz attempts to dislodge me from my rights. I already said I would voluntarily surrender my weapons, my job now is to make sure that you do too.

So why don't you? Take your guns to a police station and give them up. Or better yet, cut them into pieces first then call the press and send pictures of your self sacrifice and then take them to the police station. Be an example to all the other hypocrites who own guns but don't think anyone else should. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chinabald said:

So why don't you? Take your guns to a police station and give them up. Or better yet, cut them into pieces first then call the press and send pictures of your self sacrifice and then take them to the police station. Be an example to all the other hypocrites who own guns but don't think anyone else should. 

I have my own time schedule for this action and I will take care of it in time.

Share this post


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

That's a demand, dum dum.

So expressing "hope" that you continue to do something is a "demand"?

Hate to see how you react if somebody says "have a nice day" to you, BL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2018 at 1:52 PM, badlatitude said:
On 1/12/2018 at 1:29 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

And one that I hope you continue to not follow.

 

That's a demand, dum dum.

I hope you continue to think so!

Actually, I demand that you do!

But I repeat myself.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2018 at 6:31 AM, badlatitude said:

You and Jeff were the ones demanding I surrender my weapon in a free country or did you forget that?

These die-hards have minds which run very much like King George III.

 

Gun Grabber Boogallo II.PNG

Share this post


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

These die-hards have minds which run very much like King George III.

 

Gun Grabber Boogallo II.PNG

I can't wait for the Loyalty Oath, I wonder how they will word it?

Share this post


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

I can't wait for the Loyalty Oath, I wonder how they will word it?

The amusing question is whether Pooplius would take the oath, and if so, whether in good faith.:ph34r:

Share this post


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

The amusing question is whether Pooplius would take the oath, and if so, whether in good faith.:ph34r:

Yeah, I would like to see that in person.

Share this post


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

Yeah, I would like to see that in person.

Tom  won't say either way. Tom just changes the loyalty oath subject or disappears into the swamp gas.

Share this post


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

Tom  won't say either way. Tom just changes the loyalty oath subject or disappears into the swamp gas.

I enjoy that when it happens.

Share this post


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

I enjoy that when it happens.

I enjoy it when people on this forum who feel that certain types of firearms are far to dangerous for civilian hands own examples of a said guns anyway.

Or those on here who feel that there is no justification for civilian firearm ownership at all - yet they own at least 1 anyway.

I'm sure there is a word for this type of behavior.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2017 at 3:26 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 12/22/2017 at 11:02 AM, badlatitude said:

Nine years and 43,000 comments, someone else alerted you to facts about your own assault weapon. 

How was I supposed to know? People are always talking as if these "assault weapons" are guns you might find in the hands of a soldier.

The magazine article alerting me to the latest grabby proposal certainly gave that impression. But it also linked to the text of the law, so I decided to see what kinds of guns were covered.

I was pretty surprised that an old tube-fed .22 is considered a battlefield weapon. You were a soldier. Did you ever see one in a war? Do you find it surprising that an old .22 with a fixed magazine is an assault weapon or did you already know that?

Badlat?

Were you going to give me the benefit of your military experience on this matter?

Were you aware that my old .22 is a battlefield weapon that's inappropriate for civilian ownership?

And did you ever see one on any actual battlefield?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Badlat?

Were you going to give me the benefit of your military experience on this matter?

Were you aware that my old .22 is a battlefield weapon that's inappropriate for civilian ownership?

And did you ever see one on any actual battlefield?

No Tom, and I never saw any of these weapons on a battlefield either, but they would be very successful in a hard conflict.

SF-lead_Posse-that-brought-down-outlaw-N

This grizzly photograph shows the posse that brought outlaw Ned Christie to justice. In it, they pose with Christie’s dead body on a board, holding his 1873 Winchester rifle. With the exception of one man, the posse members are all armed with ‘73 and 1886 Winchesters, and a couple appear also to be packing 1873 Colt Peacemakers. The seated man in the foreground at left holds a .45-70 single-shot 1873 Springfield “trapdoor” rifle—which, despite its lack of rapid fire, boasted one heckuva wallop at long range.
– True West Archives –

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah geez. Your elk aren't going to want my 30/30 next, are you? It's obviously less lethal than my old .22 because it holds less than half the number of rounds. I have to crank that silly lever to fire another shot. Don't tell me that one is next to be defined as an "assault weapon."

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ah geez. Your elk aren't going to want my 30/30 next, are you? It's obviously less lethal than my old .22 because it holds less than half the number of rounds. I have to crank that silly lever to fire another shot. Don't tell me that one is next to be defined as an "assault weapon."

Your paranoia is showing like dirty underwear Tom, You only wanted to know if I ever saw a .22 like yours in battle.

Share this post


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

Your paranoia is showing like dirty underwear Tom, You only wanted to know if I ever saw a .22 like yours in battle.

Actually, I also asked whether you were aware that it's an assault weapon that is inappropriate for civilian ownership.

You seemed to be making fun of the fact that I did not know until grabberz told me.

So, did you know?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Did you ever see one in a war?

This is the question that you asked. The second question you have asked at least a dozen times and continue to post that ridiculous thread even though you are the only one posting in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On October 22nd 2017, a Missouri man pulled the emergency brake on an Amtrak train in Nebraska, and was thereafter subdued in the engineer's booth while fiddling with controls by Amtrak employees on the train. He was armed with a .38, and  "A backpack belonging to Wilson was found to contain "three additional loaded speed loaders, a box of .38 ammunition, a hammer, a fixed blade knife, tin snips, scissors, a tape measure" and a respirator-style mask, according to the federal filing." In his home, LEOs found  

A search of Wilson's residence turned up a hidden compartment behind a refrigerator, in a space that had been disguised to look like a permanent wall panel.

From the affidavit:

"Upon removing the panel agents discovered a large amount of evidence to include a tactical vest, 11 AR-15 (rifle) ammunition magazines with approximately 190 rounds of .223 ammunition, one drum-style ammunition magazine for a rifle, firearms tactical accessories (lights), 100 rounds of 9mm ammunition, approximately 840 rounds of 5.45x39 rifle ammunition, white supremacy documents and paperwork, several additional handgun and rifle magazines, gunpowder, ammunition reloading supplies, and a pressure plate. Also located in the compartment was a hand-made shield."

While at the residence, agents also spoke to Wilson's father, who — after consulting with his attorney — gave 15 of his son's guns to the FBI team, along with a tactical body armor carrier with ceramic ballistic plates.

Officials also found cards for the National Socialist Movement (Detroit) and the Covenant Nation in Alabama. Wilson's roommate said that he'd begun acting strangely over the summer and had become radicalized after joining an alt-right group. 

At least two of those weapons were found to be in possible violation of federal laws. One, a Pioneer Arms Corporation Model PPS43-C, a lightweight rifle, was "fully automatic," the affidavit said. The other, a CZ Scorpion Evo 3, had been shortened.

Wilson's roommate told the FBI that Wilson had begun acting strangely last summer, when Wilson "joined an 'alt-right' Neo-Nazi group" that he found after looking for white supremacy forums online.

Speaking to federal agents, the roommate said Wilson has said he is interested in "killing black people," the affidavit states, adding that the roommate believed that Wilson was serious. The witness also said that Wilson's earlier statements led him to believe that he and others in his white supremacist group were responsible for putting up "Whites Only" signs at businesses.

Share this post


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

Ah geez. Your elk aren't going to want my 30/30 next, are you? It's obviously less lethal than my old .22 because it holds less than half the number of rounds. I have to crank that silly lever to fire another shot. Don't tell me that one is next to be defined as an "assault weapon."

You could always discuss this possible development for fourteen months on Political Anarchy. As in the ways that water and gravity seek their own levels.

Share this post


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

 Did you ever see one in a war? Do you find it surprising that an old .22 with a fixed magazine is an assault weapon or did you already know that?

This is the question These are the questions that you asked.

Yes, I know.

Still wondering about that second one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I enjoy it when people on this forum who feel that certain types of firearms are far to dangerous for civilian hands own examples of a said guns anyway.

Or those on here who feel that there is no justification for civilian firearm ownership at all - yet they own at least 1 anyway.

I'm sure there is a word for this type of behavior.

I am a long tall Texan, I wear a ten gallon hat... (2. He come from Texas to enforce da law...)

It's the dreaded hypocrisy police, with badass bpm57.

GVA 2014 to 2017.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2018 at 6:10 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Are either of  you really not bright enough to detect the difference? (between a suggestion and a demand) Not all that surprised that Joe doesn't understand, but you too, badlat?

You are "suggesting" repeatedly. Repeated, unrelenting OCD nagging kinda makes up a demand. 

Tom Ray, why are you a loud Libertarian, but a serial  gun grabber too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2018 at 6:31 PM, badlatitude said:

This is a good illustration of the game you play. You mince words to get away from being found wrong; you would make a great White House press secretary. I haven't attached criminal penalties to any of my suggestions, hell, I have never been a legislator before. You and Jeff were the ones demanding I surrender my weapon in a free country or did you forget that?

No.  I was demanding that you live by the principles that you espouse.  You know.... so you don't look so fucking hypocritical.  

I have to admit though, that I'm a bit confused on where you stand on the issue.  So indulge me with a couple of simple answers to clear up my confusion:

1.  BL - do you think that ownership of Assault rifles, such as your SCAR or the ubiquitous AR-15 style semi-auto rifle are a problem in our society?

2.  If yes to the above, what should be done, specifically, to address that problem?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2018 at 1:19 AM, badlatitude said:
On 1/13/2018 at 1:17 AM, chinabald said:

So why don't you? Take your guns to a police station and give them up. Or better yet, cut them into pieces first then call the press and send pictures of your self sacrifice and then take them to the police station. Be an example to all the other hypocrites who own guns but don't think anyone else should. 

I have my own time schedule for this action and I will take care of it in time.

There's no time like the present.  Every day you fritter away is time your SCAR could get loose and go on a killing rampage.  Think of the children.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I can't wait for the Loyalty Oath, I wonder how they will word it?

I've taken the loyalty oath many times.  I don't see the issue with that.  Do you have an issue with supporting and defending the Constitution?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The second question you have asked at least a dozen times and continue to post that ridiculous thread even though you are the only one posting in it.

I hope you continue to ignore your job.

On 1/9/2018 at 11:52 AM, badlatitude said:

I already said I would voluntarily surrender my weapons, my job now is to make sure that you do too.

I thoughtfully provided a thread all about your job.

I agree it's a ridiculous job.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes, I know.

Still wondering about that second one. 

This "have you seen one in battle" gag is underused in your playlist, bigly. It's so good, so exciting even, that you need to rotate it in twenty times a day. 

 

16 hours ago, badlatitude said:

...continue to post that ridiculous thread even though you are the only one posting in it.

What did I miss?

Share this post


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

I've taken the loyalty oath many times.  I don't see the issue with that.

You are not Tom Ray. And Tom Ray may be a cut above Pooplius Propagandus.

Share this post


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

The Big picture: In the last 15 years the liberals have minimal "victories" and huge losses. Gun owners have it very well right now.
* AWB dead federally, with zero prospect of renewal. If Sandy Hook and a Dem controlled nation couldn't jump start it, nothing will. 
* DC v. Heller - secured the individual right. ZERO prospect for libs to overturn that. 
* McDonald v. Chicago - secured incorporation forcing states to acknowledge the individual right and not place unreasonable restrictions. Zero prospect for libs to overturn it.
* Concealed carry is shall issue in most states, and even Constitutional Carry in IIRC 6 states. Record concealed carry permit applications set routinely.
* Concealed carry in national parks now lawful.
* AWB barely surviving and will ultimately be axed in a few states. Same with magazine bans. These are about the only "wins" Dems have posted but these will be short lived.
* GOP controlled Congress, POTUS, for the near term and SCOTUS for the long term. 
* Gun ownership is high and growing in all demographics including women, minorities, gays, liberals, trangenders, etc. 
* "Assault weapons" like the AR platform and high capacity combat handguns are fastest growing markets. 
* Voters in about 45 states routinely reject gun bans by overwhelming figures. 

What target-rich territory we have here. Thanks, Bean.

Quote

The Big picture: In the last 15 years the liberals have minimal "victories" and huge losses. 

Let's discuss this big picture", while containing your imagination..

  • You gained gun registration with Heller II and Heller III.
  • You lost in Highland Park, an AW ban.
  • AW's were banned after the NY SAFE Act and CT challenges, aka Sandy Hook fallout
  • you acquired an AW ban AND intermediate AW scrutiny with your MD AW challenge (Kolbe).
  • INDOOR MILITIA ONLY? Peruta folded on you, as had Drake vs Jejerian. 
  • The pattern of the courts, in 900 cases,  allows gun restrictions.
  • Seven states recently increased gun laws wrt domestic violence.
  • The 2016 goal for the NRA was guns in colleges. They went 2 for 15.
  • The 2017 goal for the NRA was national gun permit reciprocity. It was a whimper.

  • Quote

    Jocal: The Millennials are coming, too. Generally, they don't accept gun mayhem and lethal street violence.

Share this post


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

* DC v. Heller - secured the individual right. ZERO prospect for libs to overturn that. 

No need to overturn it. Heller is moderating itself. NOTE: Heller contains the gun "right" to one's home  Expressly, it protects the public from guns of battlefield design. I am a Heller supporter, with respectful reservations.

 

19 hours ago, beanbeanbean said:

* "Assault weapons" like the AR platform and high capacity combat handguns are fastest growing markets. 

Cocaine once had a market. Fortunately, popularity does not determine constitutionality.

Quote

Kolbe, Reply to The Dissent,  p 61

 Meanwhile, the Heller majority said nothing to confirm that it was sponsoring the popularity test. Nevertheless, our dissenting colleagues also claim support for the popularity test from the recent two-justice concurring opinion in Caetano, which propounded that, under Heller, “the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” See Caetano, 136 S. Ct. at 1031 (Alito, J., concurring in the judgment). Of course, that reading of Heller failed to garner a Court majority in Caetano.

 

We reject the interpretation of Heller embraced by our dissenting colleagues because it is incompatible with Heller’s clear and dispositive pronouncement: There is no Second Amendment protection for “M-16 rifles and the like,” i.e., “weapons that are most useful in military service.” See 554

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2018 at 9:52 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

It should also be noted that banning and confiscating guns is tethered to a specific political party.

"Banning and confiscating guns" is the effect of a problem, and not the cause of our problem. Tom, you want to get ahead of what is bothering you. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's good to see that you understand the gun grabbers are continually conceding. We gain more and more gun rights. Most states are shall issue states.  Heller shut down unconstitutional laws. The AW ban was not renewed. States rights are being up held while unconstitutional federal laws are not being passed. Criminals being denied guns and CCW is a big plus. Campus carry has started and hb38 is going to the Senate.

You had a huge victory in the Wrenn decision, too. Shall Issue was imposed on D.C. tI was a hard-fought matter: that fight started as Palmer vs D.C,  in 2002, IIRC. Palmer was a CATO officer.

Share this post


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

You had a huge victory in the Wrenn decision, too. Shall Issue was imposed on D.C. tI was a hard-fought matter: that fight started as Palmer vs D.C,  in 2002, IIRC. Palmer was a CATO officer.

Since the Palmer plaintiffs were denied trying to register handguns in DC with the stated purpose of using the pistols for concealed carry in 2009, I have my doubts the case started in 2002. It really isn't that hard to find the decision, Joe.

Of course, DC mostly ignored the result of Palmer, so now we have the Wrenn ruling.

From the  Wrenn decision: “the state of the law in Chaucer’s England — or for that matter Shakespeare’s or Cromwell’s — is not decisive here.”

Share this post


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

From the  Wrenn decision: “the state of the law in Chaucer’s England — or for that matter Shakespeare’s or Cromwell’s — is not decisive here.”

Is that so? Make your minds up. Because English History became plenty decisive in Heller, and was represented untruthfully, by Libertarians. 

 

Joyce in her prime.JPG

11 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Of course, DC mostly ignored the result of Palmer, so now we have the Wrenn ruling.

You are out of breath as you run to catch up. To Mr. Palmer, my advice is this: if you want to be gay, then be gay, and be good at it. But nobody needs a gun to be gay, day or night.

Share this post


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

It's good to see that you understand the gun grabbers are continually conceding. We gain more and more gun rights. Most states are shall issue states.  Heller shut down unconstitutional laws. The AW ban was not renewed. States rights are being up held while unconstitutional federal laws are not being passed. Criminals being denied guns and CCW is a big plus. Campus carry has started and hb38 is going to the Senate.

I could add many concessions to support your point. You have a powerful, quite popular, very dynamic  extremist position. Most of the blind 38% core support for Trump is solidly at your side, for example. But bean, the pendulum is always in motion. I think that the gun degradation and mayhem will snowball...then will suffer from its own dead weight.

If this is a cultural coin-toss, I think the millennials will make the difference. But I don't think this level of gun mayhem will extend for, or is sustainable for, twenty years.

Quote

Gun Violence Archives Summary, 2017

Total documented gun incidents (61,091) Up 18% over four years

Gun deaths (excluding 22,000 suicides/yr average) Up 23% in four years

Number of Gun Injuries (31,059 )Up 29% over four years

Mass Shootings  (345) Up 26% over four years

Teens killed or injured ages 12-17, not incl suicides (3,222) Up 38% over four years

Number of Children age 0-11 Injured (727)  Up 19% over four years

Accidental Shootings (2,003) Up 25% over four years

Officer involved fatalities(1,910 Up  21% over four years

Suspect/shooters killed by cops (2,075) Up 17% over four years

 

 

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2018 at 9:31 AM, badlatitude said:

This is a good illustration of the game you play. You mince words to get away from being found wrong; you would make a great White House press secretary. I haven't attached criminal penalties to any of my suggestions, hell, I have never been a legislator before. You and Jeff were the ones demanding I surrender my weapon in a free country or did you forget that?

So you say you are looking forward to the day when guns are banned and you will happily turn yours in. Yet you act like surrendering your weapon in a free country is a bad thing.

So by extension you are looking forward to the day when you no longer live in a free country and are forced to surrender your guns? Please explain this.

Share this post


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

I could add many concessions to support your point. You have a powerful, quite popular, very dynamic  extremist position. Most of the blind 38% core support for Trump is solidly at your side, for example. But bean, the pendulum is always in motion. I think that the gun degradation and mayhem will snowball...then will suffer from its own dead weight.

If this is a cultural coin-toss, I think the millennials will make the difference. But I don't think this level of gun mayhem will extend for, or is sustainable for, twenty years.

 

 

Millennials? You realize they are already in their late 20s into their mid 30s.  They are here, they vote and most of them are not the cartoon characters they are portrayed in social media.  

Share this post


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

He didn't state a position, he posted a list of facts. From that you inferred a position and have blindly swung away at it. 

 

This guy has followed me day after day for two weeks. His position so far seems quite like many others. Nuances or solid insights, if any, are welcome. He is a reader, wonderful. I'm all ears cb.

Quote

Millennials? You realize they are already in their late 20s into their mid 30s.  They are here, they vote and most of them are not the cartoon characters they are portrayed in social media.  

I have a daughter within this bracket. i'll make no "same ol' same ol'" associations with this crowd. They DO NOT seem any dumber than our lot.

Share this post


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

This guy has followed me day after day for two weeks. His position so far seems quite like many others. Nuances or solid insights, if any, are welcome. I'm all ears.

I took that part out of my post because upon reviewing he did in fact state a position, his original post was just a list of facts but I see that later he did post a position. My apologies 

Share this post


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

So you say you are looking forward to the day when guns are banned and you will happily turn yours in. Yet you act like surrendering your weapon in a free country is a bad thing.

So by extension you are looking forward to the day when you no longer live in a free country and are forced to surrender your guns? Please explain this.

Who said anything about looking forward to when you no longer live in a free country? If the laws change, that's the dictate of the people, and the way the constitution is supposed to work.

Share this post


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

Who said anything about looking forward to when you no longer live in a free country? If the laws change, that's the dictate of the people, and the way the constitution is supposed to work.

Sorry, I guess I took your words to mean what they mean. I'll be careful to not do that again.

Share this post


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

Is that so? Make your minds up. Because English History became plenty decisive in Heller, and was represented untruthfully, by Libertarians.

Maybe you could read the Wrenn ruling. Maybe then you will realize that it is possible to find examples that seem to contradict your "Charles (note: a lawyer, not a history phd) is 100% correct and there is nothing that contradicts him" mantra.

I'll need a translation for whatever else you were babbling in your reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2018 at 6:09 AM, bpm57 said:

From the  Wrenn decision: “the state of the law in Chaucer’s England — or for that matter Shakespeare’s or Cromwell’s — is not decisive here.”

Oh snap!  Now THAT's going to make jocal's head explode fo sho.  

Share this post


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

Who said anything about looking forward to when you no longer live in a free country? If the laws change, that's the dictate of the people, and the way the constitution is supposed to work.

And if the laws change because you voted for politicians advocating that change, then we can just call it the dictate of badlat.

The Bill of Rights are supposed to temper the diktats of populist control freaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

grabberz.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

grabberz.jpg

That was actually a sarcastic joke post made in response to the news guy asking if earplugs on the ground were rubber bullets. 

Share this post


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

Oh snap!  Now THAT's going to make jocal's head explode fo sho.  

I will concede for the moment. But let's pursue this. 

Your claim is not about the rights in Chaucer's England. Your claim to gun "rights" is based on claims in the colonial times, from say 1775 to the ratification in the 1790's. Proceed. Present your individual rights law platform for that time and place, if any.

My legal platform in that place and timeframe is this: Blackstone's summary of English law, which applied widely in U.S. courts in this timeframe. George Washington used his work, for one. Three state constitutions adopted the provisions of Northamption, with NC quoting Northampton's exemptions word for word. The carrying of arms in public, or the engagement in armed confrontation in public, was illegal.

  • Any gun rights would have become a 29th grievance in the Declaration.
  • Any gun rights would have prevented the rampant gun collection of free citizens of loyalist or mixed sympathy.
  • Any powder rights would have brought Lord Dunmore to court in VA. Instead, Dunnore was the one citing the right to "Self Defence" in the newspaper, as the slaves made the powderless colonists nervous...

Your turn, mates.

Share this post


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

And if the laws change because you voted for politicians advocating that change, then we can just call it the dictate of badlat.

This is so cheap. So beneath you Tom. The People, wherever and whatever, and their legislation are to be respected. 

 

5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The Bill of Rights are supposed to temper the diktats of populist control freaks.

You are seeing exactly that. 1% of the adult population owns three AW's each. The 99% have access to modest protection from them.

Share this post


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

the Heller decision made it rock solid.

The Heller decision has undermined you several ways. It generously reaffirms the GCA '68, which was uncalled for. It has half a dozen supportive comments about gun restrictions. It relieves the problems with battle guns. It does not expand castle doctrine.

It contains weapons to the home, where ironically, most mass murders happen, in the domestic environment.  FBI data and media reports identify a total of 110 mass shootings that occurred in the US between January 2009 and July 2014. 57 percent of mass murders in which at least four people were killed with a gun were related to domestic or family violence.

According to a USA TODAY analysis of gun-related deaths published in December, nearly 1,000 people have died in mass shootings since 2006, and a majority of them were killed by people they knew.

Share this post


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

And if the laws change because you voted for politicians advocating that change, then we can just call it the dictate of badlat.

The Bill of Rights are supposed to temper the diktats of populist control freaks.

How do you know who the hell I vote for? You sure presume a lot, Mr. Ray. 

Share this post


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

...

 

You are seeing exactly that. 1% of the adult population owns three AW's each. The 99% have access to modest protection from them.

What do you mean "them"? You're an assault weapon owner just like badlat and me.

Share this post


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

How do you know who the hell I vote for? You sure presume a lot, Mr. Ray. 

You seem to be a D partisan and so I assume you vote for grabberz. Hillary, for example. Did you vote for her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, chinabald said:

IMG_3802.JPG

 

Share this post


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

You seem to be a D partisan and so I assume you vote for grabberz. Hillary, for example. Did you vote for her?

Gee, Tom, I always thought you were a Nazi, see what happens when you jump to conclusion's  based on faulty perceptions? I made my preference well known before the election, you should have paid attention.

Share this post


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

What do you mean "them"? You're an assault weapon owner just like badlat and me.

You've been under a rock for three days, and this is what you come back with? Your condition is sad Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2018 at 7:56 PM, badlatitude said:
On 1/17/2018 at 6:20 PM, chinabald said:

So you say you are looking forward to the day when guns are banned and you will happily turn yours in. Yet you act like surrendering your weapon in a free country is a bad thing.

So by extension you are looking forward to the day when you no longer live in a free country and are forced to surrender your guns? Please explain this.

Who said anything about looking forward to when you no longer live in a free country? If the laws change, that's the dictate of the people, and the way the constitution is supposed to work.

Uhhh, sounds like you need to go back to civics 101 and re-read how the constitution is supposed to ACTUALLY work.  Because what you posted there is pretty much the opposite of why the BoR was written.

So if the "dictate" of the people want to bring slavery back and they change the laws to allow owning other people again..... you would be ok with that????  Seriously, WTF?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites