Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

A series of questions for Jocal.... Feel free to play along

Recommended Posts

Hi @jocal505.  We all seem to go round and round with you about Assault weapons, gun bans, and dogballs and such.  You are a slippery one when it comes to being pinned down on a topic or taking a stand on an issue.  So I'm giving you the chance to edumacate us if you were gunz czar for a day.

So you have been appointed Joey Gunz Czar and your task is to determine where a gun should be banned or not.  I'm going to show you a series of pictures that your hypothetical staff is going to put before you and you have to make the decision to ban it or not.   So you have been given two rubber stamps..... one says "BAN IT!" and the other says "Its OK, Keep it."  With each, you are required by law to write a brief explanation for why you chose to ban it or keep it legal.  One or two sentences at most are needed.  

And your task starts in 3.... 2...... 1............ GO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gunz #1:

recoil-ford-bronco-dillon-aero-m134-mini

Ban it or keep it???  Why or why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not this shit again....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

not this shit again....

 

KOOLN_large.jpg?v=1484098822

Share this post


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

Gunz #1:

recoil-ford-bronco-dillon-aero-m134-mini

Ban it or keep it???  Why or why not?

Keep it. It can't be concealed and it is not statistically responsible for gun violence. It's too heavy to take anywhere without a friggen truck. 

On the other hand, any gun that can be concealed easily, ban them, they don't conform to the spirit of the Constitution in my opinion, they have limited -- if any -- value for a well-trained militia, short of a commander using them to shoot his own soldiers who won't attack a line. Handguns are so remarkably ridiculous, they're a ludicrous invention. I don't even like the idea of law enforcement having them.

On the other hand, all guys like us who keep bringing up gun threads should endure to a near eternity of torment by being forced to watch the Buffalo Bills for the rest of this season.

Share this post


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

Keep it. It can't be concealed and it is not statistically responsible for gun violence. It's too heavy to take anywhere without a friggen truck. 

On the other hand, any gun that can be concealed easily, ban them, they don't conform to the spirit of the Constitution in my opinion, they have limited -- if any -- value for a well-trained militia, short of a commander using them to shoot his own soldiers who won't attack a line. Handguns are so remarkably ridiculous, they're a ludicrous invention. I don't even like the idea of law enforcement having them.

On the other hand, all guys like us who keep bringing up gun threads should endure to a near eternity of torment by being forced to watch the Buffalo Bills for the rest of this season.

Even the Bills own players quit at halftime. 

Share this post


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

Jeff gets off on guns and thinking he makes heads explode.

as Eva Dent

Oddly enough, all the usual suspects are in this thread bitching about it.

While not even pretending to answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bpm57 said:

Oddly enough, all the usual suspects are in this thread bitching about it.

While not even pretending to answer the question.

Was there a question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Was there a question?

So in your 1st response, you were bitching about.. what?

Share this post


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

So in your 1st response, you were bitching about.. what?

Just Jeffy-poo mentally masturbating about gunZ

Share this post


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

Oddly enough, all the usual suspects are in this thread bitching about it.

While not even pretending to answer the question.

Oddly enough it is directed at 1 poster who is responding.  English not your 1st language?  I commented at how Jeff started yet another gunz thread just for a poster when there are already numerous threads.

It never ends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm allowed to walk into the House of Representatives or the White House with the weapon, it should not be banned for routine possession and personal protection..   For reference, I have only the occasional settled traffic violation on my record and am a US citizen.   If it is too dangerous for a patriot like me to be carrying when enjoying my civic right and duty to see my government in action, then clearly it is dangerous and should be banned.   I deliberately picked the most Republican of federal elected governments, instead of the Senate, FBI or Supreme Court, knowing that they would err on the side of having an armed citizenry ready to protect themselves for the good of the nation.   

Share this post


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

I'm pretty sure guns are not allowed in any Federal building other than LEOs.  

That's my concern.   If the Republicans believed the dogma that the solution for school shootings is armed teachers and the solution for crazies in public places shooting everybody is a murderous crossfire of armed citizenry why should they be treated differently?  The best protection they could ask for is to have every visitor, intern, lackey and lobbyist armed and ready for anything.   They own the federal government, yet have made no effort to protect the nation and themselves by eliminating our heinous gun control laws in their 'workplace'.   Image result for heavily armed with legal weapons

Share this post


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

I commented at how Jeff started yet another gunz thread just for a poster when there are already numerous threads.

It can be a broad topic.

Unless you feel that gun topics take up to much valuable first page space that is better utilized for discussion about the current administration.

Share this post


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

Hi @jocal505.  We all seem to go round and round with you about Assault weapons, gun bans, and dogballs and such.  You are a slippery one when it comes to being pinned down on a topic or taking a stand on an issue.  So I'm giving you the chance to edumacate us if you were gunz czar for a day.

So you have been appointed Joey Gunz Czar and your task is to determine where a gun should be banned or not.  I'm going to show you a series of pictures that your hypothetical staff is going to put before you and you have to make the decision to ban it or not.   So you have been given two rubber stamps..... one says "BAN IT!" and the other says "Its OK, Keep it."  With each, you are required by law to write a brief explanation for why you chose to ban it or keep it legal.  One or two sentences at most are needed.  

And your task starts in 3.... 2...... 1............ GO.

I'm with David Hogg this time, and next time.

 

America has the chance to prove what it loves more

-Insanely lax gun laws

or

-Children

Be part of that decision, vote November 6th before your job is to tell others to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jeffie felt bad that he wasn't on LB15s Top Poster graph.

Share this post


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

It can be a broad topic.

Unless you feel that gun topics take up to much valuable first page space that is better utilized for discussion about the current administration.

No it can't. It is quite specific.  I await your brilliant and succinct contributions. 

Share this post


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

If I'm allowed to walk into the House of Representatives or the White House with the weapon, it should not be banned for routine possession and personal protection..   For reference, I have only the occasional settled traffic violation on my record and am a US citizen.   If it is too dangerous for a patriot like me to be carrying when enjoying my civic right and duty to see my government in action, then clearly it is dangerous and should be banned.   I deliberately picked the most Republican of federal elected governments, instead of the Senate, FBI or Supreme Court, knowing that they would err on the side of having an armed citizenry ready to protect themselves for the good of the nation.   

So what are your thoughts on hammers? 

Share this post


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

So what are your thoughts on hammers? 

Hammers are useful for precision adjustments and changing the specs of all things mechanical.   Guns have more limited utility.

  My point with last night’s rant was not to ban box cutters or even all projectile weapons.   I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republican leadership.     They follow the NRA marching orders encouraging guns as the solution to violence and praise the gun toting patriot, but fear and hide from both.   They insulate themselves from their own policy with metal detectors and armed guards.

Share this post


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

That's my concern.   If the Republicans believed the dogma that the solution for school shootings is armed teachers and the solution for crazies in public places shooting everybody is a murderous crossfire of armed citizenry why should they be treated differently?  The best protection they could ask for is to have every visitor, intern, lackey and lobbyist armed and ready for anything.   They own the federal government, yet have made no effort to protect the nation and themselves by eliminating our heinous gun control laws in their 'workplace'.   Image result for heavily armed with legal weapons

What is a hippo doing in the background?

Odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, joe - here is your next topic gunz:  

Q:  Ban it or keep it?

top.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the thread takes a clever direction...

 

 

 

Share this post


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

And the thread takes a clever direction...

It would be even more clever if you answered the question.  So in the Gunz #2 above, Ban it or keep? 

Shhhhhh..... it's a quiet dogball.

Share this post


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

If I'm allowed to walk into the House of Representatives or the White House with the weapon, it should not be banned for routine possession and personal protection..   For reference, I have only the occasional settled traffic violation on my record and am a US citizen.   If it is too dangerous for a patriot like me to be carrying when enjoying my civic right and duty to see my government in action, then clearly it is dangerous and should be banned.   I deliberately picked the most Republican of federal elected governments, instead of the Senate, FBI or Supreme Court, knowing that they would err on the side of having an armed citizenry ready to protect themselves for the good of the nation.   

Ah, but that's different.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yoo-Hoo, @jocal505.  Where didja go???  We need your keen insight here on what gunz are allowed and which ones are not.

Yoohoo16.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you do the parade of guns thing several times already? I am slippery, they say. In this situation, I need to know what MADD thinks about this gun or that gun, before I say too much.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Lark said:

Hammers are useful for precision adjustments and changing the specs of all things mechanical.   Guns have more limited utility.

  My point with last night’s rant was not to ban box cutters or even all projectile weapons.   I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republican leadership.     They follow the NRA marching orders encouraging guns as the solution to violence and praise the gun toting patriot, but fear and hide from both.   They insulate themselves from their own policy with metal detectors and armed guards.

But the NRA's marching orders included guns allowed at the NRA Convention.

Share this post


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

Didn't you do the parade of guns thing several times already? I am slippery, they say. In this situation, I need to know what MADD thinks about this gun or that gun, before I say too much.

 

Here's an easy one:

SWVictory22silver-flower.jpg

Share this post


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

But the NRA's marching orders included guns allowed at the NRA Convention.

Basically, this was an exception, something for a lame-o to cherry pick. The NRA seems to choose arenas with firm gun policies, then they pass the decision for the no-gun policy onto the venue.

Visitors are not alowed guns in NRA HQ, but the staff are armed against one another, and against the public.

In general, the NRA is touchy about having guns around.

Share this post


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

Didn't you do the parade of guns thing several times already? I am slippery, they say. In this situation, I need to know what MADD thinks about this gun or that gun, before I say too much.

 

BS.  MADD's silence certainly never stopped you from commenting on gunz before.  

C'mon joey.... what are you afraid of?  They are just pictures.  Why are you so afraid of taking a stand and stating your opinion.  "Slippery" is for weasels.  You don't want to be thought of as a weasel here, do you?

Share this post


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

BS.  MADD's silence certainly never stopped you from commenting on gunz before.  

C'mon joey.... what are you afraid of?  They are just pictures.  Why are you so afraid of taking a stand and stating your opinion.  "Slippery" is for weasels.  You don't want to be thought of as a weasel here, do you?

Did MADD ever say you can have beer, but not whiskey, and only white wine?  

Share this post


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

Did MADD ever say you can have beer, but not whiskey, and only white wine?  

I don't recall.....

Share this post


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

Why are you so afraid of taking a stand and stating your opinion.

Come on, Joe doesn't do opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2018 at 9:23 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

You don't want to be thought of as a weasel here, do you?

I want a spot on your anti-rape squad. Then maybe we can get a suite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2018 at 9:23 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Why are you so afraid of taking a stand and stating your opinion. 

  • Asked and answered, many times. I'm an amalgam man, and a Kolbe fan. My stand is that the AW is an amalgram of undesirable, over-the-top features.
    Quote

    The relevant question is not whether they are themselves M16s or other arms used by a military; or whether they are useful at all or only useful in military service; or whether they have this or that single feature in common with a non-banned firearm. Rather, the issue is whether the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines possess an amalgam of features that render those weapons and magazines like M16s and most useful in military service. The uncontroverted evidence here is that they do. See, e.g., J.A. 735, 1121-22 (reflecting that the banned assault weapons are designed to “kill[] or disabl[e] the enemy” on the battlefield, and that “[t]he net effect of [their] military combat features is a capability for lethality — more wounds, more serious, in more victims — far beyond that of other firearms in general, including other semiautomatic guns”); id. at 891, 1151 (indicating that large-capacity magazines “are particularly designed and most suitable for military and law enforcement applications,” as well as a “uniquely military feature[]” of both the banned assault weapons and other firearms to which they may be attached).

    Nothing in our decision today affects or calls into question the Second Amendment protection of weapons that are not most useful in military service — including, of course, Heller’s handguns.

    Source: reply to the dissent, Kolbe

     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2018 at 9:53 AM, jocal505 said:

Didn't you do the parade of guns thing several times already? I am slippery, they say. In this situation, I need to know what MADD thinks about this gun or that gun, before I say too much.

 

Another spineless cop out. State your opinion, rather than hiding and making excuses. 

Gutless, disingenuous fucking coward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2018 at 6:13 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Did MADD ever say you can have beer, but not whiskey, and only white wine?  

Not that I recall. 

Share this post


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

Another spineless cop out. State your opinion, rather than hiding and making excuses. 

Gutless, disingenuous fucking coward. 

Insults and taunts. Ouch ouch ouch. mad is calling me out, from the Third Grader Trail, unless I define AW's, for the school skippers.

Yet I answered in full. I am joined in my cowardice, and in my vaguely cool definition,  by the Kolbe court. 

Quote

The relevant question is not whether they are themselves M16s or other arms used by a military; or whether they are useful at all or only useful in military service; or whether they have this or that single feature in common with a non-banned firearm. Rather, the issue is whether the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines possess an amalgam of features that render those weapons and magazines like M16s and most useful in military service. 

 

Share this post


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

Joe does  soliloquies 

  • Joe got tired of hearing the stream of unsupported, rosy, gun generalizations on Political Anarchy.
  • Back in the day, Joe had studied the root causes of violence by reading lots of Gandhi and fucking Martin Luther King Jr.
  • Joe informed himself about the gun violence problem, while reading research and social science, between 2012 and 2016.
  • In 2017, Joe discovered 21 historians led by a 90 year old broad who debunked this mess long ago. Lois Schwoerer is now Joe's drummer.
  • Joe discovered a guy named Larry Pratt steering the dangerous craft of the modern gun culture.
  • Then he found a phony, purpose-fabricated navigational chart, called Heller. 
  • Joe had grave concerns after Sandy Hook, but over six good years the courts have relieved those concerns in 97% of their decisions. Joe can cite these cases.
  • Joe has read the Libertarian writers behind Heller, and was quite unimpressed.
  • Now, nearing the end of 2018, Joe is that guy who can type away, about the words and decisions of peer-reviewed research and history, and about the big picture in the courts.

Out buddy Joe got the idea he has something to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jocal505 said:
  • Joe got tired of hearing the stream of unsupported, rosy, gun generalizations on Political Anarchy.
  • Back in the day, Joe had studied the root causes of violence by reading lots of Gandhi and fucking Martin Luther King Jr.
  • Joe informed himself about the gun violence problem, while reading research and social science, between 2012 and 2016.
  • In 2017, Joe discovered 21 historians led by a 90 year old broad who debunked this mess long ago. Lois Schwoerer is now Joe's drummer.
  • Joe discovered a guy named Larry Pratt steering the dangerous craft of the modern gun culture.
  • Then he found a phony, purpose-fabricated navigational chart, called Heller. 
  • Joe had grave concerns after Sandy Hook, but over six good years the courts have relieved those concerns in 97% of their decisions. Joe can cite these cases.
  • Joe has read the Libertarian writers behind Heller, and was quite unimpressed.
  • Now, nearing the end of 2018, Joe is that guy who can type away, about the words and decisions of peer-reviewed research and history, and about the big picture in the courts.

Out buddy Joe got the idea he has something to say.

That’s all great. But I think I’d keep that part of “fucking Martin Luther King Jr” to yourself. It doesn’t really add to the topic and it’s bad form to kiss and tell. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2018 at 5:19 AM, jocal505 said:

I want a spot on your anti-rape squad. Then maybe we can get a suite.

Dude, take your gay rape sex fantasies to another forum and leave me out of your wank dreams.  Maybe the mods can start a new subforum for you called:  "Dick sucking and Car jumping Anarchy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2018 at 3:10 PM, mad said:
On 9/20/2018 at 12:53 PM, jocal505 said:

Didn't you do the parade of guns thing several times already? I am slippery, they say. In this situation, I need to know what MADD thinks about this gun or that gun, before I say too much.

 

Another spineless cop out. State your opinion, rather than hiding and making excuses. 

Gutless, disingenuous fucking coward. 

Ya think??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about 

On 9/20/2018 at 6:41 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
On 9/20/2018 at 9:12 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Ok here's gunz #3:  

28135711_3.jpg?v=8D51EF9A39C1B40

@jocal505, Ban it or allow it?  

Remington 700 BDL?  Nice glass? Can't have that running around loose. 

I would presume he would be ok with this gun.  It has all the requisite NON-SCARY items:

  • Wooden stock in soothing earth tones - Check
  • Not semi-automatic - Check
  • Leather sling (Non Vegan friendly, but still non-scary) - Check
  • Low capacity magazine - Check, check

What's not to love about this beautiful tool?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:
On 9/22/2018 at 4:10 AM, mad said:

Another spineless cop out. State your opinion, rather than hiding and making excuses. 

Gutless, disingenuous fucking coward. 

Ya think??

I've gone mano a mano with you, on a daily basis, since early in 2012.  You have taunted me a lot, from the third grader trail, while I've held my own, from the library.

  • Soon, we will go more rounds on the generic interest balancing I have found.
  • Unless you want to expound upon The Federalist. 
  • For shits and giggles, I should bait you into hiding behind the skirts down at MADD, where they hate your gunz.
  • Let's play Paul Revere. You present him as your poster boy, yet his call to arms, if delivered, would fall on ears which would dutifully muster in Lexington and Concord. Gun fighting, not gun rights, was on his mind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are surfing on self-inflicted butthurt here. I'm thinking of getting into this thread, with a long needle touching the butthurt.

Tom's fucking DiFi law thing lists 100 pages of specific gun models, single spaced. Not good enough? WTF. You guys are insatiable, and therefore hopeless. I gotta roll with DiFi, and she wasn't my first choice.

LMFAO, as you feel the pain today. I'll check in on the pain and angst, maybe tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:
On 9/21/2018 at 6:19 PM, jocal505 said:

I want a spot on your anti-rape squad. Then maybe we can get a suite.

Dude, take your gay rape sex fantasies to another forum and leave me out of your wank dreams.  Maybe the mods can start a new subforum for you called:  "Dick sucking and Car jumping Anarchy"

Don't get the wrong idea, mate. You can have your bottle, and I can have an acoustic guitar. Neither guy is to get loud. You know how to defend yourself, right?

Share this post


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

dogballs Tom's fucking DiFi law thing lists 100 pages of specific gun models, single spaced. Not good enough? WTF.

Is that 100 pages of approved gunz or banned gunz?  Can you provide a link?

Share this post


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

Is that 100 pages of approved gunz or banned gunz?  Can you provide a link?

Its a long list of "approved" firearms. Joe won't, but use your imagination as to how a list might be used if it was passed.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2095/text

It is funny to look at the list of sponsors, considering how many of them are against national reciprocity.

Assault weapons that only the government should have according to S.2095:

image.jpeg.4f5e29c4ce6cb1a6aa589c0e6668bfaa.jpeg

899 × 600 - pardini.it

image.jpeg.0c133d39c1af44ec70ba0c0e99ffa1cc.jpeg
 
Joe will have to explain how his favorite Kolbe quote applies to them.
 

Share this post


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

Its a long list of "approved" firearms. Joe won't, but use your imagination as to how a list might be used if it was passed.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2095/text

It is funny to look at the list of sponsors, considering how many of them are against national reciprocity.

Assault weapons that only the government should have according to S.2095:

image.jpeg.4f5e29c4ce6cb1a6aa589c0e6668bfaa.jpeg

899 × 600 - pardini.it

image.jpeg.0c133d39c1af44ec70ba0c0e99ffa1cc.jpeg
 
Joe will have to explain how his favorite Kolbe quote applies to them.
 

Dogballs!

Share this post


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

What about 

I would presume he would be ok with this gun.  It has all the requisite NON-SCARY items:

  • Wooden stock in soothing earth tones - Check
  • Not semi-automatic - Check
  • Leather sling (Non Vegan friendly, but still non-scary) - Check
  • Low capacity magazine - Check, check

What's not to love about this beautiful tool?

But will it shoot the censored ammo?

Share this post


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

but use your imagination as to how a list might be used if it was passed.

Use your imagination if it ISN'T passed. You want to identify the miscreant gunz, correct? That's the whole recurring problem which Jeffie keeps bringing up, for solutionz. You'll get it sorted out eventually, long after DiFi has completed her mission for the Deep State figures..

Share this post


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

Dogballs!

The Ruger is, but the Pardini is in .32 S&W Long.

Share this post


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

Use your imagination if it ISN'T passed.

I won't have to, it isn't going anywhere for now.

8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You want to identify the miscreant gunz, correct?

Then why have a list of "legal" ones? Manually operated single shot rifles don't tend to be listed as AWs, so why make a list that includes them?

 

Share this post


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

Use your imagination if it ISN'T passed. You want to identify the miscreant gunz, correct? That's the whole recurring problem which Jeffie keeps bringing up, for solutionz. You'll get it sorted out eventually, long after DiFi has completed her mission for the Deep State figures..

There aren't any "miscreant guns" - that's a projection of your focus on the object over the behaviors of certain people who use those objects inappropriately. 

You can have any torch in the world - if you use it to break into a bank vault?  That's an inappropriate behavior, it's not the torch that "made you do it". 

 

Share this post


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

There aren't any "miscreant guns" - that's a projection of your focus on the object over the behaviors of certain people who use those objects inappropriately. 

You can have any torch in the world - if you use it to break into a bank vault?  That's an inappropriate behavior, it's not the torch that "made you do it". 

The weapons effect is a documented phenomenon. And the appeal of certain guns plays upon certain human characteristics. Need examples?

  • Harlan Carter once preached derringers, for children.
  • Jeffie carries TWO AW's to a gathering, and feels ultra cool.
  • Women's gun models fit into the purse pockets designed for women's guns.
  • I got a bb gun when I was eight. Wooh hooh.
  • Dylann Roof was a Glock man.
  • Which model did Rambo choose?

See how that works?

Share this post


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

The weapons effect is a documented phenomenon. And the appeal of certain guns plays upon certain human characteristics. Need examples?

  • Harlan Carter once preached derringers, for children.
  • Jeffie carries TWO AW's to a gathering, and feels ultra cool.
  • Women's gun models fit into the purse pockets designed for women's guns.
  • I got a bb gun when I was eight. Wooh hooh.
  • Dylann Roof was a Glock man.
  • Which model did Rambo choose?

See how that works?

The appeal of certain car plays upon human characteristics, the appeal of certain drugs play upon human characteristics, the appeal of certain foods play upon human characteristics - the phenomenon isn't constrained to guns, and your myopic, exclusive focus on eliminating guns rather than dealing with causality is exactly why nothing you propose will ever come to pass. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

exclusive focus ??? on eliminating guns rather than dealing with causality is exactly why nothing you propose will ever come to pass. 

Most of what I expected after Sandy Hook is coming true, you fine man. 

Quote

exclusive focus ???

Nope, Ches, I am actually here to peddle MLK, who drilled down on 

Quote

dealing with causality

of violence. Guns are a sideshow for me (and always have been, heh heh).

 

So avoid your typical demonization and mis-representing thing for five minutes.

  • The gun is NOT just an inanimate object, like a rock or something. I handle tools for a living, and many get special handling, placement, and distribution, based on the danger presented. In that cold context, any firearm is an extremely dangerous-ass thingee. Pegged on the danger scale. What it is.
  • I suggest that "the weapons effect" will be re-inforced by science as time rolls on.
  • I suggest that the appeal of a battle gun scratches a certain itch, mate. Same for a bb gun. That itch itself is the suspect here.
  • Having a gun nearby plays into violence. To the National Academy of Sciences, the gun is an agent in each of these encounters...and in each armed confrontation.
  • Science is not relying upon any changes in human gun behavior in the near future.

If you believed your own lips, you would champion Priorities for Research, the 2013 NAS/IOM blueprint for causal study. It laid out a three-to-five year plan, but was stillborn when no funding was forthwith.

Share this post


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

I suggest that the appeal of a battle gun scratches a certain itch, mate. Same for a bb gun. That itch itself is the suspect here.

Can you describe the "itch" you were scratching by owning your assault weapon for so many years before destroying it?

Have you gotten better? Is there a lingering rash?

Share this post


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

Can you describe the "itch" you were scratching by owning your assault weapon for so many years before destroying it?

Have you gotten better? Is there a lingering rash?

You don't meed any faded glory, son Tell us instead about the main attraction, about your rimfires and dogballs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's gun #4 for Joe.

SCAR-17S-FDE_Rotators_4-1800x897.png

Joey, please Tell the class why this should or should not be banned.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2018 at 11:27 PM, jocal505 said:

Jeffie carries TWO AW's to a gathering, and feels ultra cool.

 

Share this post


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

Here's gun #4 for Joe.

SCAR-17S-FDE_Rotators_4-1800x897.png

Joey, please Tell the class why this should or should not be banned.  

AMALGAM ALERT!!!

Share this post


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

AMALGAM ALERT!!!

Pretty much.

15 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Joey, please Tell the class why this should or should not be banned.  

If the gun will generate good will and non-violent behavior, Di Fi should give it a pass.

Share this post


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

Do you think silver or pink makes an assault weapon better at generating good will?

SWVictory22silver-flower.jpg

Vapor.you got...on a database you don't got. For worthy conversation, we could always discuss Blackstone, and his approach to street violence.

Quote

Did Blackstone support an armed rabble?

 Standard Model writers will undoubtedly continue to claim that an “armed citizenry” is what Jefferson meant as the constitutional “protection against standing armies.” The intellectual and ideological origins of a well-regulated militia do not support this conclusion. The historical record, including the legal works of early eighteenth century commentators, is clear that an armed rabble or unorganized militia— i.e. a mere “armed citizenry”—was a danger to republican liberty, not an advancement of it. 64

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How am I supposed to buy an assault weapon that generates good will when no one will even tell me what kind that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
16 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Joey, please Tell the class why this should or should not be banned.  

If the gun will generate good will and non-violent behavior, Di Fi should give it a pass.

And how does a gun do that?  Can you give me some examples?

Share this post


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

And how does a gun do that?  Can you give me some examples?

I'm thinking it should fire chocolates that are loaded with THC.

Share this post


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

And how does a gun do that?  Can you give me some examples?

What kind of behavior, what kind of will, does that #4 gun generate? Are derringers great for children, like Harlon Carter said?

Quote

The similarities to the February 26th killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin by Florida concealed handgun permit holder George Zimmerman are undeniable. But the incident described above is the killing of Ramón Casiano by Harlon Carter, who transformed the National Rifle Association (NRA) into the radical right wing organization we know today.

Carter arrived at his new, high-profile position with some serious personal baggage. According to Under Fire: The NRA and the Battle for Gun Control by Osha Gray Davidson, a 17-year-old Carter shot and killed 15-year-old Ramón Casiano in Laredo, Texas, on March 3, 1931. After returning home from school that day, Carter was told by his mother that there were three Latino youths loitering near the family’s property. Carter left his house, shotgun in tow, to confront the alleged loiterers. ... www.MeetTheNRA.org.

Hi Jeff. If any models in your parade of guns will teach us non-violence, I support those models..

Share this post


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