Jump to content

The debate over assault weapons


Recommended Posts

That's some seriously fucked up Americano neighbors shit....     OMG!

Confiscate every firearm..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Tom, please recall that most of us stopped being polite to you after you humorously called for the regulation of Dodge Challengers like the one used in the Charlottesville murder.  It's crypto-Na

And keep the guns locked up or in your possession.  Kids have friends who come over.

So race baiting is calling you out for your own history of racist posts, Joe? Or is the "race-baiting" the part where everyone reads your words and ascribes a racist intent to it, even if that wa

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Keith said:

That's some seriously fucked up Americano neighbors shit....     OMG!

Confiscate every firearm..

FUCK YOU!!!  I'm not giving up my rights just because two white trash neighbors can't get along.  Honestly, the world is probably better off with all of them out of circulation in society one way or the other.  

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

I know you mean well with this "veterinarians for peas" crappola..... but like every other pacifist do-gooder

Well, you and I have disagreed on these issues in the past.

I believe that you are way wrong, but are not writing in bad faith - which is why I do not refer to you as a "Reichista". 

As to the Vets For Peace rather uninformed and stupid comment above, I'll wager that many of us have been closer to fire fights than you have. But unlike you, we have learned something from the experience. A number of our VFP former medics have served with almost unimaginable bravery. 

How dare you insult their service, or their courage? 

And you have also succumbed to the mistake the militaristic Right makes regularly - which is to imagine that all peaceniks are pacifists, so much so that some of your elk joke about assaulting us with, you imagine, impunity. 

If you come after me, my friends or my family you will find out in a hurry that you are wrong in that regard. 

    Signed,  6 foot 3 inches of fightin' left wing fury - and a proud Vet For Peace 

This is our stalwart San Diego chapter . .  

Image result for veterans for peace

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

 

23 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I know you mean well with this "veterinarians for peas" crappola..... but like every other pacifist do-gooder

Well, you and I have disagreed on these issues in the past.

I believe that you are way wrong, but are not writing in bad faith - which is why I do not refer to you as a "Reichista". 

As to the Vets For Peace rather uninformed and stupid comment above, I'll wager that many of us have been closer to fire fights than you have. But unlike you, we have learned something from the experience. A number of our VFP former medics have served with almost unimaginable bravery. 

How dare you insult their service, or their courage? 

 

And yet you insult every other veteran who has served and is serving by calling us all cowards For using the tools of the trade and not buying into your pacifist BS. 
 

Just think on that a bit before you start pounding your keyboard in response.  I wish the world was a peaceful place where we could all sing kumbaya around the kamp fire. But there’s wolves out there and the world needs sheepdogs to protect the sheep like you. . Just saying. 

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

I'm not giving up my rights just because two white trash neighbors can't get along. 

He's just doing the normal thing that grabbers do: trying to hold peaceful gun owners responsible for the actions of criminals.

I suspect, but can't know for sure, that was the point of making up this fake comparison:

On 9/18/2020 at 12:32 PM, Olsonist said:

It also absolves individuals of the LIABILITY FOR USE by others. So if your roommate steals your keys and bypasses your 'secure gun storage' and uses your gun to holdup a liquor store, you're totally good. But if your roommate steals your keys and runs over a little old lady with your car, well that's what you have liability insurance for.

 

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

  I wish the world was a peaceful place where we could all sing kumbaya around the kamp fire. But there’s wolves out there and the world needs sheepdogs to protect the sheep like you. . Just saying. 

A whole bunch of the people of the planet would argue that you are the wolf. 

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

A whole bunch of the people of the planet would argue that you are the wolf. 

 Well, yes. Jeff is predatory. And Jeff can get loud when the moon is full. When Jeffie gets fluffed up, all the chickens get nervous. @Burning Man

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

A whole bunch of the people of the planet would argue that you are the wolf. 

Sometimes I am..... depends on the flock.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2021 at 12:40 AM, Burning Man said:

And yet you insult every other veteran who has served and is serving by calling us all cowards For using the tools of the trade and not buying into your pacifist BS. 
 

Just think on that a bit before you start pounding your keyboard in response.  I wish the world was a peaceful place where we could all sing kumbaya around the kamp fire. But there’s wolves out there and the world needs sheepdogs to protect the sheep like you. . Just saying. 

In Britain it’s done with a comparatively disarmed police force.  We don’t need idiots like you and the elk carting around AW’s.  Certainly not outside your house.

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

you insult every other veteran who has served and is serving by calling us all cowards For using the tools of the trade

If you like violence so much, use hand tools or hands - don't stand off with drones and light up wedding parties. 

Just about all the rest of that killing hardware is, indeed, cowardly in the extreme. 

Your words suggest that you may have a case of moral injury and/or PTSD 

Perhaps the VA can help you 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently acquired an AR-15 billed as the "Modern American Sports Rifle" - HA.

It only takes a few trigger pulls to realize it's 100% a killing machine and civilians really don't need to own one!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Liquid said:

I recently acquired an AR-15 billed as the "Modern American Sports Rifle" - HA.

It only takes a few trigger pulls to realize it's 100% a killing machine and civilians really don't need to own one!

 

But they're fun, right? When used safely and appropriately, I mean.....

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Liquid said:

I recently acquired an AR-15 billed as the "Modern American Sports Rifle" - HA.

It only takes a few trigger pulls to realize it's 100% a killing machine and civilians really don't need to own one!

 

I presume you have now cut yours into pieces, right?  When you do, please post up some pics.  TIA.

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

Tom is busy re-reading the Fast + Furious report again is in a meeting and unavailable for comment.


Hah! Actually, I commented on the topic of that thread not long before your post, but since you only want to talk about guns, let's do so!

What point were you trying to make with this fake comparison?

On 9/18/2020 at 12:32 PM, Olsonist said:

It also absolves individuals of the LIABILITY FOR USE by others. So if your roommate steals your keys and bypasses your 'secure gun storage' and uses your gun to holdup a liquor store, you're totally good. But if your roommate steals your keys and runs over a little old lady with your car, well that's what you have liability insurance for.


The fact that you can't/won't answer when the answer is perfectly obvious is delicious to me, so keep it up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recon that if a cop can shoot and kill an unarmed black man and nothing happens, Trump should be able to get off with warning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2021 at 8:44 PM, Pedagogical Tom said:

I agree that Biden may have been lying about saying he wanted Beto to have a role in gun control in his administration. Politicians do lie a lot.

My vigilance is no longer really required, at least at the federal level, since as I reported above, the scary adjustable stock that turned my wife's ordinary .22 into a scary assault weapon was lost in an unfortunate boating accident last month, so I put the original wood furniture back on it and my wife didn't buy a replacement. At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it! No assault weapons here (until I start talking about Florida law and Biden's gun control proposals, under both of which we still have various naughty guns and gun parts around, until they too go on a fishing trip...)

Here comes Biden! On he Parkland anniversary he made a big gun control announcement. Did you read the part about adjustable stocks and ordinary .22s?

Me neither. It wasn’t there. He called for passing existing House resolutions on enhanced background checks. He called it common sense. Which it is. We have seen enough evidence during the past few months that with all the nutballs running around better background checks are common sense.

As I said months ago Biden did not make a campaign promise to hire Beto. He accepted Betos endorsement and said “go do your grass roots thing” and then hopped in the car and we never heard from Beto again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, loneshark64 said:

Here comes Biden! On he Parkland anniversary he made a big gun control announcement. Did you read the part about adjustable stocks and ordinary .22s?

Me neither. It wasn’t there. He called for passing existing House resolutions on enhanced background checks. He called it common sense. Which it is. We have seen enough evidence during the past few months that with all the nutballs running around better background checks are common sense.

As I said months ago Biden did not make a campaign promise to hire Beto. He accepted Betos endorsement and said “go do your grass roots thing” and then hopped in the car and we never heard from Beto again.

B-b-b-b-but mah GUNZZZZ!

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, loneshark64 said:

Here comes Biden! On he Parkland anniversary he made a big gun control announcement. Did you read the part about adjustable stocks and ordinary .22s?

Me neither. It wasn’t there. He called for passing existing House resolutions on enhanced background checks. He called it common sense. Which it is. We have seen enough evidence during the past few months that with all the nutballs running around better background checks are common sense.

As I said months ago Biden did not make a campaign promise to hire Beto. He accepted Betos endorsement and said “go do your grass roots thing” and then hopped in the car and we never heard from Beto again.

Yes, despite your lack of a source and failure to mention it, I was already familiar with his remarks and the fact that he talked again about banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's).

By the way, as readers of legislative proposals endorsed by hundreds of named politicians have seen, the congressional bills to ban (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) that

On 10/6/2020 at 7:03 AM, loneshark64 said:

Beto and the secret TeamD cabal that “write our laws”


have put forth for public examination, the "resolutions," as you call them, do contain stuff about background checks. Stuff that I think is stupid, which is why I wrote about it in a thread about stoopid gun laws. Among other things, it requires that I go to town to get a background check prior to handing someone a battlefield .22 for target plinking in my back yard. It still seems stupid, no matter how many times people say it's just common sense.

I already said you may be right that Biden was lying about giving Beto a role in gungrabbing, but that doesn't make his supporters go away. Did you hear the roar of the crowd when Beto talked about taking (assault weapons, ordinary .22's)? Biden still knows those are his elk.

 

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

B-b-b-b-but mah GUNZZZZ!

- DSK

Speaking of your guns, I wonder about

On 11/26/2018 at 10:20 PM, Pedagogical Tom said:

this:

On 11/24/2017 at 11:25 AM, Steam Flyer said:

As a gun-owning Southerner & veteran & capitalist, I'm not welcome in most libby-rull groups.

 


You obviously know that TeamD types are hostile to gun ownership, so may continue to be unwilling to answer, but did your arsenal include (assault weapons, ordinary .22's)?

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

Speaking of your guns, I wonder about


You obviously know that TeamD types are hostile to gun ownership, so may continue to be unwilling to answer, but did your arsenal include (assault weapons, ordinary .22's)?

Teams now?  I'd prefer that my office mate, my neighbor doesn't shoot me through the wall while he plays with his toys.

It happens too fucking often.  Or, he might just blow his own fucking brains out.  I guess that's what he is packing.

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

Did you hear the roar of the crowd when Beto talked about taking (assault weapons, ordinary .22's)?

What we heard was the writing on the wall.

But Tom, you are lying, since the Beto subject wasn't about any dogballs. Rather, Beto was  going on about battle guns. (M-16's and the like.)

I heard the impromptu response, and noted the average, normal, citizens, as they lived and spoke within their healthy society. We heard individuals celebrating. We heard rowdy fans of the Heller decision... which is now saving us from assault weapons', M-16's, and the like.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pedagogical Tom said:
On 11/26/2018 at 10:20 PM, Pedagogical Tom said:
On 11/24/2017 at 11:25 AM, Steam Flyer said:

As a gun-owning Southerner & veteran & capitalist, I'm not welcome in most libby-rull groups.

 


You obviously know that TeamD types are hostile to gun ownership, so may continue to be unwilling to answer, but did your arsenal include (assault weapons, ordinary .22's)?

Well, the answer is that as a generally nice guy (as opposed to being an obsessed-about-GUNZZ!! whackjob) I have a lot of friends among pretty much everybody

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if I said this before.  My son's alarm goes off.  He jumps out of the shower, grabs his shotgun and stands in front of the house cleaner, dripping on the floor stark naked.

Carry on.

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

the Beto subject wasn't about any dogballs. Rather, Beto was  going on about battle guns. (M-16's and the like.)

I think he was talking about so-called "assault weapons" so I looked up legislation he cosponsored and found that, like other TeamD presidential candidates, he means battlefield .22's like the one my wife had before the unfortunate boating accident. It's handy that the "secret cabal" publish their names along with their proposals, don't you think?

Do you think he was talking only about two kinds of guns, or can we at least agree he was talking about "assault weapons"?

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

I think he was talking about so-called "assault weapons" so I looked up legislation he cosponsored and found that, like other TeamD presidential candidates, he means battlefield .22's like the one my wife had before the unfortunate boating accident.

Do you think he was talking only about two kinds of guns, or can we at least agree he was talking about "assault weapons"?

When I walk into the grocery, I'd really wish you weren't with your gun.  And as a matter of fact, no guns make us all safer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2021 at 1:30 AM, Liquid said:
On 2/12/2021 at 2:27 PM, Burning Man said:

I presume you have now cut yours into pieces, right?  When you do, please post up some pics.  TIA.

not a chance!

Why not??  Serious question....  if you feel they are a "100% a killing machine and civilians really don't need to own one!"  Why the fuck would you buy it and then worse yet keep it?  

Or is this a typical case of "everyone else but me should not be allowed to own an AR-15" like @badlatitude and others?  What makes you immune from shooting up a school full of children with it?  What keeps you from taking it to work and killing all your co-workers and your dick boss?  I'm being serious, I'd like to understand how you justify that given your disdain for the concept of civilians possessing a 100% killing machine.  

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


I have put forth for public examination, the "resolutions," as you call them, do contain stuff about background checks. Stuff that I think is stupid, which is why I wrote about it in a thread about stoopid gun laws. Among other things, it requires that I go to town to get a background check prior to handing someone a battlefield .22 for target plinking in my back yard. It still seems stupid, no matter how many times people say it's just common sense.

 

Tom, I'm not interested in plowing through a 125 page document on this stuff to find the part about transfers that has you so hot and bothered.  Please post the relevant text here and I'll be happy to discuss it.  I suspect it doesn't say what you think it says.  But I'm happy to be corrected.

My state changed their transfer laws while I was away and now ALL sales, private and commercial must go through a background check.  It's a PITA and the buyer has to pay a $25 fee for the service.  And some dealers charge a bit for their time as well.  I just sold a rifle to a guy on the internet and I had to meet him at the LGS to do the handoff.  Yep it was inconvenient, but I wouldn't have it any other way.  I didn't know the guy and there would have been no possible way for me to tell if he was a good law-abiding citizen with pure intentions of just shooting deer with it, or a gang-banger pyschopath mass murderer.  So sorry, but the inconvenience was worth it.  I had a previous buyer ask if we could just skip the gun store transfer since "nobody will know".  Nupe, not happening.  

As for letting others shoot your gun...... I often let strangers on the range shoot my long range rifle as it's pretty unique.  There have been Metro cops right next to me on the firing line when I did it and no one batted an eye.  That is not a "transfer".  

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the rest of you that think buying a gun off the interwebs is easy and that commercial sites like gunbroker.com and such are easy ways to bypass the background check requirement, you are simply wrong @jocal505 et al.  

I had a buyer out of state for a gun I was selling and I insisted that it had to go through an FFL.  The FFL he put me in touch with would not even let me send the gun directly to him.  I had to give it to my local FFL who would then send it to the buyer's FFL and then he could take possession of it after a BGC.  Same with these online gun seller sites.... they usually have to be sent FFL to FFL.  

Can some people just skip all that and send a gun to you directly through UPS?  Sure, but they are breaking the law.  

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

When I walk into the grocery, I'd really wish you weren't with your gun.  And as a matter of fact, no guns make us all safer.

You live in GA right?  When you walk into a grocery - there are probably 5 people around you with a concealed gun on their person.  You haven't been kilt yet, right?

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

I think it's time to reinstate the Dogballs Rule.

Its rapidly approaching that.  And if @Zapata is going to reinstate that, could we PLEAAAASE have the same for "reichesta" too?  

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

Why not??  Serious question....  if you feel they are a "100% a killing machine and civilians really don't need to own one!"  Why the fuck would you buy it and then worse yet keep it?  

Or is this a typical case of "everyone else but me should not be allowed to own an AR-15" like @badlatitude and others?  What makes you immune from shooting up a school full of children with it?  What keeps you from taking it to work and killing all your co-workers and your dick boss?  I'm being serious, I'd like to understand how you justify that given your disdain for the concept of civilians possessing a 100% killing machine.  

Did I give my disdain? No, I made an observation. Pay attention!

I once was like you... beating the dead horse of gun control in America. I'm all for common sense background checks like I go through in Oregon.

No, we civilians really don't NEED to own an AR-15 but I do. It's rather exhilarating pounding a steel plate several hundred yards away - whilst standing!

If you haven't notice, the cat is out of the bag with regards to guns in America. So, get over it! 

As to questioning my mental stability and moral compass that stops me from killing people - Fuck You!

Do you own a vehicle? What makes you immune from driving onto a curb filled with people? What stops you from mowing over kids waiting for the school bus on your way to work where you drive over your hated boss because he owns an AR-15?????

After all, cars kill close to the same amount of people as guns.

I'm being serious, explain yourself BM! Are you responsible enough to own a vehicle?

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

Did I give my disdain? No, I made an observation. Pay attention!

I once was like you... beating the dead horse of gun control in America. I'm all for common sense background checks like I go through in Oregon.

No, we civilians really don't NEED to own an AR-15 but I do. It's rather exhilarating pounding a steel plate several hundred yards away - whilst standing!

If you haven't notice, the cat is out of the bag with regards to guns in America. So, get over it! 

As to questioning my mental stability and moral compass that stops me from killing people - Fuck You!

Do you own a vehicle? What makes you immune from driving onto a curb filled with people? What stops you from mowing over kids waiting for the school bus on your way to work where you drive over your hated boss because he owns an AR-15?????

After all, cars kill close to the same amount of people as guns.

I'm being serious, explain yourself BM! Are you responsible enough to own a vehicle?

First of all, I think you have me confused with someone else.  I own several AR-15s.  Well I did before the tragic boating accident where they were all lost.  I'm an avid advocate of the right to own them responsibly.  I was simply taking your comment that because you think they are 100% a killing machine, that you are being the usual hypocrite who says "everyone but me can't have one".  

And Yes, you did give your disdain.  You poo-poo'd the idea that it is "America's Modern Sporting rifle".  I hates to break it to you, but it actually is.  More game is taken with AR-15 type rifles than anything else.  More sporting and competition events use AR-15s and similar than any other rifle in the US. And, unlike that wood stock classic bolt action 3-round rifle, it admirably and effectively performs double duty as a home protection tool.

You say that they are 100% a killing machine and that no one should have one, and then in the next breath talk about how great they are.  You join the long and growing list of hypocrites like jocal, BL and others who want to make civilian ownership of these killing machines practically impossible for everyone else as long as you "got yours".  

I too am 100% in favor of common sense laws like universal BGCs.  Read my post a couple above yours.  However you, by virtue of possessing that war machine, join the ranks of the people @jocal505 despises because YOU are now part of the problem.  By simply owning a scary assault rifle - YOU are contributing to mass murder.  Don't believe me, just ask him.  Your "mindset" of normalizing it by just having one kills children according to jocal and his elk. 

The problem is that people like Jocal and @badlatitude never just stop with BGCs.  They want to chip away chip away at the entire right itself.  So yes, words matter.  Are they 100% killing machine?  Sure they are, that's what they were designed to do.  Just like a 30-06 bolt rifle was designed to be a 100% killing machine in 1903.  Just like a .38 revolver was.  Just like a 7 shot .45 auto was.  Just like a Glock 17 was.  And that's not a bad thing.  In the responsible gun owner's hands, only the correct things like paper targets, steel targets, game animals, rapists and home intruders get killed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:
10 hours ago, Pedagogical Tom said:


I have put forth for public examination, the "resolutions," as you call them, do contain stuff about background checks. Stuff that I think is stupid, which is why I wrote about it in a thread about stoopid gun laws. Among other things, it requires that I go to town to get a background check prior to handing someone a battlefield .22 for target plinking in my back yard. It still seems stupid, no matter how many times people say it's just common sense.

 

Tom, I'm not interested in plowing through a 125 page document on this stuff to find the part about transfers that has you so hot and bothered.  Please post the relevant text here and I'll be happy to discuss it.  I suspect it doesn't say what you think it says.  But I'm happy to be corrected.

I posted it in the other thread, but since it's so popular around here when I move things from one thread to another, I'll indulge you.
 

Quote

 

(1)  Beginning  on  the  date  that  is  90  days  after the  date  of  enactment  of  the  Assault  Weapons  Ban  of 2017,  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person  who  is  not  licensed  under  this  chapter  to  transfer  a  grandfathered semiautomatic  assault  weapon  to  any  other  person  who  is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed  manufacturer,  or  licensed  dealer  has  first  taken custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

(2)  Paragraph  (1)  shall  not  apply  to  a  temporary transfer  of  possession  for  the  purpose  of  participating  in target  shooting  in  a  licensed  target  facility  or  established range if—

(A)  the  grandfathered  semiautomatic  assault weapon  is,  at  all  times,  kept  within  the  premises  of the target facility or range; and

(B)  the  transferee  is  not  known  to  be  prohibited  from  possessing  or  receiving  a  grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon.

(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘transfer’—

(A) shall include a sale, gift, or loan; and

(B)  does  not  include  temporary  custody  of  the grandfathered   semiautomatic   assault   weapon   for  purposes  of  examination  or  evaluation  by  a  prospective transferee.

 

I bolded the problematic parts. I don't have a FFL and my back yard is not a licensed target facility nor an established range.

This would be easy to fix and one grabber (Swallwell, I think) actually proposed the obvious SOLution in another bill: temporary transfers for target plinking would be allowed on private property where shooting is legal. But do you think that level of common sense could be sold to your new elk? I have seen no evidence of that.

As I noted in the other thread, it would be OK to hand someone a battlefield .22 in my yard if, and only if, that person is a prospective purchaser who wants to evaluate the gun. So there is an easy workaround that just involves lying about intent. But why not just let people plink with battlefield .22's on private property where it's legal?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Pedagogical Tom said:
Quote

(1)  Beginning  on  the  date  that  is  90  days  after the  date  of  enactment  of  the  Assault  Weapons  Ban  of 2017,  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person  who  is  not  licensed  under  this  chapter  to  transfer  a  grandfathered semiautomatic  assault  weapon  to  any  other  person  who  is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed  manufacturer,  or  licensed  dealer  has  first  taken custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

(2)  Paragraph  (1)  shall  not  apply  to  a  temporary transfer  of  possession  for  the  purpose  of  participating  in target  shooting  in  a  licensed  target  facility  or  established range if—

(A)  the  grandfathered  semiautomatic  assault weapon  is,  at  all  times,  kept  within  the  premises  of the target facility or range; and

(B)  the  transferee  is  not  known  to  be  prohibited  from  possessing  or  receiving  a  grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon.

(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘transfer’—

(A) shall include a sale, gift, or loan; and

(B)  does  not  include  temporary  custody  of  the grandfathered   semiautomatic   assault   weapon   for  purposes  of  examination  or  evaluation  by  a  prospective transferee.

 

I bolded the problematic parts. I don't have a FFL and my back yard is not a licensed target facility nor an established range.

This would be easy to fix and one grabber (Swallwell, I think) actually proposed the obvious SOLution in another bill: temporary transfers for target plinking would be allowed on private property where shooting is legal. But do you think that level of common sense could be sold to your new elk? I have seen no evidence of that.

As I noted in the other thread, it would be OK to hand someone a battlefield .22 in my yard if, and only if, that person is a prospective purchaser who wants to evaluate the gun. So there is an easy workaround that just involves lying about intent. But why not just let people plink with battlefield .22's on private property where it's legal?

Nupe, sorry but I don't think that's what it means.  You are not transferring a gun by simply letting them shoot it while you're standing next to them.  The gun is never leaving your custody.  The exceptions are if you hand the gun to someone and the guns remains on a range, you don't have to be there present at all times.  It does apply if you "loan" a gun to someone that then takes the weapon away from your person and it leaves your possession.

Sorry for your confusion.

DOGBALLS!

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

Nupe, sorry but I don't think that's what it means.  You are not transferring a gun by simply letting them shoot it while you're standing next to them.  The gun is never leaving your custody.  The exceptions are if you hand the gun to someone and the guns remains on a range, you don't have to be there present at all times.  It does apply if you "loan" a gun to someone that then takes the weapon away from your person and it leaves your possession.

Sorry for your confusion.

DOGBALLS!

That's not what it says. There's nothing about being present or not and the law makes no sense on its face if you were right.

I'm sure a range owner would react to a customer opening fire on someone in the next lane by saying the gun was not in his custody, it was in the custody of the shooter. And he'd be right. Similarly, if I hand a gun to a person on private property and he starts shooting people around me, it's sure going to seem like that gun is not actually in my custody. If you hand someone a gun, a transfer has occurred. Even if it's a temporary tranfer for target shooting, something the law does mention. Your source for believing otherwise?

Here's Swalwell's proposal that I mentioned.

Quote

(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has no reason to be-lieve that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively— (i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting; (ii) while reasonably necessary for the purposes of hunt-ing, trapping, or fishing, if the transferor— (I) has no reason to believe that the transferee in-tends to use the firearm in a place where it is illegal; and (II) has reason to believe that the transferee will com-ply with all licensing and permit requirements for such hunting, trapping, or fishing; or (iii) while in the presence of the transferor.

If your view of transfers were correct, part (iii) there would not be needed, since no transfer can occur if the tranferor is present. Yet there it is. Why do you suppose that is?

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

you are being the usual hypocrite - If you insist. Your opinion of me is none of my business

And Yes, you did give your disdain. Nope, I laughed at the notion it was sporty. How many rounds can you get off/need to shoot your protein? Dad always said, if you can't drop the bird by the second shot, you don't deserve a 3rd!

effectively performs double duty as a home protection tool. Seriously??? An AR-15 has to be the most stupid home defense weapon available unless you live alone and have no neighbors!

You say that they are 100% a killing machine and that no one should have one  Nope, I said we civilians don't NEED one

... yet how great they are. Yup, fun to shoot!

You join the long and growing list of hypocrites... blah, blah, blah

YOU are now part of the problem. So say you, should I get a tattoo?

You make numerous mental gymnastic assumptions about me in order to make your point... Are you with Q?

 

 

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

Can some people just skip all that and send a gun to you directly through UPS?  Sure, but they are breaking the law.  

Lawbreaking is no problem. Tom Ray is on a giddy campaign right now, on Political Anarchy, to break the law. Parts of his wife's dogballs have met boating mishaps, etc. Very vivid stuff. He is live-streaming cutesy lawlessness, whoops he just bumped his coffee, blah blah. This is the guy was suggesting sending prohibited Ruger parts up the Iron Pipeline, also on PA.

 Concerted lawbreaking, the normalization of, the celebration of. 

 

The guardrails you are experiencing are reassuring.

Just a comment. Private sales are a problem, but not because criminals will ignore the terms. The importance of including private sales is that right now, there are no legal repercussions placed on whom the private sellers  transfer the gun to.

 

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

  However you, by virtue of possessing that war machine, join the ranks of the people @jocal505 despises because YOU are now part of the problem.  By simply owning a scary assault rifle - YOU are contributing to mass murder.  Don't believe me, just ask him.

Jeff, this is worth noting, but not worth discussing. 

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

Concerted lawbreaking, the normalization of, the celebration of. 

Really Joe? You have proof of all this wanton lawlessness? Or is it more of your normal reading comprehension issues?

Or is it your inability to know the difference between a bill and a law?

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

Really Joe? You have proof of all this wanton lawlessness? Or is it more of your normal reading comprehension issues?

Or is it your inability to know the difference between a bill and a law?

Jeffie is on board with the boating accident talking point. We are normalizing law-breaking, and we are violating the terms of Heller...which was neither a bill nor a law. 

 

On 2/17/2021 at 10:44 AM, Burning Man said:

  I own several AR-15s.  Well I did before the tragic boating accident where they were all lost. 

Hiding battle guns is becoming common use at the time, which is bullshit, from bulshitters. Just sayin'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2021 at 5:50 PM, Burning Man said:

FUCK YOU!!!  I'm not giving up my rights just because two white trash neighbors can't get along.  Honestly, the world is probably better off with all of them out of circulation in society one way or the other.  

That there is why Canada needs to build a wall....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Lawbreaking is no problem. Tom Ray is on a giddy campaign right now, on Political Anarchy, to break the law. Parts of his wife's dogballs have met boating mishaps, etc. Very vivid stuff. He is live-streaming cutesy lawlessness, whoops he just bumped his coffee, blah blah. This is the guy was suggesting sending prohibited Ruger parts up the Iron Pipeline, also on PA.

 Concerted lawbreaking, the normalization of, the celebration of. 

 

The guardrails you are experiencing are reassuring.

Just a comment. Private sales are a problem, but not because criminals will ignore the terms. The importance of including private sales is that right now, there are no legal repercussions placed on whom the private sellers  transfer the gun to.

 

Private sales like flea markets.  Buy your guns in Georgia and import them to NYC and Chicago.  Put your money down, make some cash and blame someone else for the carnage.

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

Jeffie is on board with the boating accident talking point.

So you don't like the concept of free speech. As with so many others of your ilk in here, I wonder why you bothered to stay in the US.

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

So you don't like the concept of free speech. As with so many others of your ilk in here, I wonder why you bothered to stay in come to the US.

FIFY

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

Buy your guns in Georgia and import them to NYC and Chicago.

If only that didn't violate several laws.

Then again, so many of the echo chamber don't really care about what the laws are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nola.com/news/crime_police/article_a897bee4-73ca-11eb-bbcb-df381460932f.html

Deadly shooting at Jefferson Gun Outlet: 3 killed, 2 hurt and questions about why

'Everybody's strapped in there,' customer says

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 1:59 PM, bpm57 said:
On 2/18/2021 at 11:35 PM, jocal505 said:

Jeffie is on board with the boating accident talking point.

So you don't like the concept of free speech. As with so many others of your ilk in here, I wonder why you bothered to stay in the US.

What I don't like is the casual, normalized connection between lawlessness and AW possession.

On 2/17/2021 at 10:44 AM, Burning Man said:

I own several AR-15s.  Well I did before the tragic boating accident where they were all lost. 

 

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

What I don't like is the casual, normalized connection between lawlessness and AW possession.

Poor guy. I guess you will just have to live with the concept of free speech. Or maybe move somewhere that has speech (and firearm) laws more to your liking.

North Korea comes to mind. 

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

https://www.nola.com/news/crime_police/article_a897bee4-73ca-11eb-bbcb-df381460932f.html

Deadly shooting at Jefferson Gun Outlet: 3 killed, 2 hurt and questions about why

'Everybody's strapped in there,' customer says

The answer, according to his mom, is that the employees and other customers just wanted to murder him, so they did.

Quote

 

A woman who identified herself as Williams’ mother similarly wrote to Facebook: ‘My son did not go into that gun range shooting!’, according to NOLA.

‘Joshua ... was fired at by ... employees of the gun range and other folks in the gun range! He was murdered! (Rest in peace) my love, you will be forever in my heart!’

 

So nothing to do with the alleged refusal to unload his gun, I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

The answer, according to his mom, is that the employees and other customers just wanted to murder him, so they did.

So nothing to do with the alleged refusal to unload his gun, I guess.

Fifty shots were fired before it was over. Any comment?

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

Fifty shots were fired before it was over. Any comment?

Yeah, it's just terrible that those employees and customers decided to murder him for no apparent reason. Maybe they thought he looked a bit immature and volatile?

Not sure what it has to do with banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's), so getting back to that, do you still think that Beto was only talking about taking two kinds of guns?

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

Yeah, it's just terrible that those employees and customers decided to murder him for no apparent reason. Maybe they thought he looked a bit immature and volatile?

Not sure what it has to do with banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's), so getting back to that, do you still think that Beto was only talking about taking two kinds of guns?

 Pick a lane, and then answer the actual question.

You didn't comment on fifty shots being fired, to take out a customer, cuz freedom v. loaded gun issues, at a gun store.

What a mess, with this crowd. You can't see that?

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

 Pick a lane, and then answer the actual question.

You didn't comment on fifty shots being fired, to take out a customer,

42 would have been a better number. Now set a good example by answering the question:

do you still think that Beto was only talking about taking two kinds of guns?

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

You didn't comment on fifty shots being fired, to take out a customer, cuz freedom v. loaded gun issues, at a gun store.

What difference does it make how many shots was fired?  Dead is dead......  Besides, that's what a gun range is for - practice.  :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2021 at 10:33 AM, jocal505 said:

What I don't like is the casual, normalized connection between lawlessness and AW possession.

I kinda like it, especially as it relates to the millions of cannabis users who are prohibited from gun possession or ownership by federal law. Heck, we might even have a cue ball-headed lawyer around here who admits to violating that particular federal law. This is why I've started referring to "peaceful" gun owners instead of law-abiding ones. The ones who just casually disregard federal law are too numerous and really don't seem like any kind of threat to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2021 at 1:59 PM, Burning Man said:

What difference does it make how many shots was fired?

Remember, you are a leading intellectual in these parts.

It was a "confrontation." These gun types fired fifty bullets, beginning in a gun store, and spilling into public spaces, to settle a "confrontation." You see no problem with this?

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

This is why I've started referring to "peaceful" gun owners instead of law-abiding ones.

Your boating accidents are a campaign for open lawlessness. What could go wrong with such a crowd?

The nincumcoupers looked stupid, to the man, even without their gunz.

 

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

There's nothing illegal about losing an adjustable stock and some magazines overboard. Accidents happen!

You have been on OCD with the boating accidents. "Common use at the time" is sliding into common abuse at the time...and this is a violation of the terms, and spirit, of Heller.

I thought Heller was the shit, and it said battle guns fell outside of common use protections.

You believe in a "super-Heller," which is not the reality in play.

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

I kinda like it, especially as it relates to the millions of cannabis users who are prohibited from gun possession or ownership by federal law. Heck, we might even have a cue ball-headed lawyer around here who admits to violating that particular federal law. This is why I've started referring to "peaceful" gun owners instead of law-abiding ones. The ones who just casually disregard federal law are too numerous and really don't seem like any kind of threat to me.

Violence is not really an issue around here.  There might be a shooting or ten every night.  But it's about freedom, right?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-brain/201603/marijuana-use-may-increase-violent-behavior

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

I thought Heller was the shit, and it said battle guns fell outside of common use protections.

Speaking of battlefield .22's, do you still think that Beto was only talking about taking two kinds of guns?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

The ones who just casually disregard federal law are too numerous and really don't seem like any kind of threat to me.

 

sc bldg nov 6.jpg

nov 6 riot.jpg

gas at nov 6 riot.jpg

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

Speaking of battlefield .22's, do you still think that Beto was only talking about taking two kinds of guns?

BETO IS COMING. BIG PANIC.

No, Tom. I think your guy was leading the way to guardrails against gun violence, that a person like him could lead the education of one type of individual.

Where Beto (or another quality leader) would take us is to the  release of federal funding for the study of the causes of gun violence, sooner rather than later.

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

BETO IS COMING. BIG PANIC.

No, Tom. I think your guy was leading the way to guardrails against gun violence, that a person like him could lead the education of one type of individual.

Where Beto (or another quality leader) would take us is to the  release of federal funding for the study of the causes of gun violence, sooner rather than later.

That's nice, but do you still think that Beto was only talking about taking two kinds of guns?

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

That's nice, but do you still think that Beto was only talking about taking two kinds of guns?

Asked and answered. Read my quote. I told you what I think, and what I don't.

So now we get to the part about, why did you ask, 4x? You are a curious little fellow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
36 minutes ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

That's nice, but do you still think that Beto was only talking about taking two kinds of guns?

Asked and answered. Read my quote.

I'm guessing you're talking about post 2769? There's no answer to the question there, just deflection.

How about a simple yes or no?

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

BETO IS COMING. BIG PANIC.

No, Tom. I think your guy was leading the way to guardrails against gun violence, that a person like him could lead the education of one type of individual.

Where Beto (or another quality leader) would take us is to the  release of federal funding for the study of the causes of gun violence, sooner rather than later.

You have lost yourself, in the fog of Libertaria.

gas at nov 6 riot.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2021 at 7:56 AM, jocal505 said:

Where Beto (or another quality leader) would take us is to the  release of federal funding for the study of the causes of gun violence, sooner rather than later.

I'm sure that they would find that "gun violence" is caused by the same kind of person that causes the kinds of violence you don't care about - people who are unable to place nice with others.

Unlike you and your ilk, I don't believe in your animist theories of gun violence.

Of course, beto said nothing about research - just the claim that he would ban them all. To much cheering, if you missed the highlights of that debate.

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

Of course, beto said nothing about research - just the claim that he would ban them all. To much cheering, if you missed the highlights of that debate.

And that outburst, ill-considered for sure, is why he was an also ran in the D primary.  It went over like a fart in church to the majority of the country outside of that small live forum.  

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

And that outburst, ill-considered for sure, is why he was an also ran in the D primary.  It went over like a fart in church to the majority of the country outside of that small live forum.  

This forum is outside that one and I didn't see any objection at all from the TeamD/gungrabby side.

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

This forum is outside that one and I didn't see any objection at all from the TeamD/gungrabby side.

My point being that taking assault rifles away from everybody is not at the very top of everyone's agenda.  Despite dems talking about taking away your wife's now lost in a watery grave dogballs, even the D's realize a new AWB is practically impossible to enact in today's climate nor is it necessarily desirable.  I would prefer they concentrate on strengthening existing laws against using guns to commit crimes as well as enacting legislation to keep gunz out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.  Those are the common grounds that both gun nutterz and gun haterz should come together on rather than retreating to extremist corners.  The folks who say "from my cold dead hands" are just as caustic and dangerous as those like @jocal505 and beto who say "take them all".  

Just saying.

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

The folks who say "from my cold dead hands" are just as caustic and dangerous as those like @jocal505 and beto who say "take them all".

 

You are dumb enough to deserve it, and "take them all" is a worst case scenario, which may play out (if 70 million Americans are dumb enough to support Trump, at this point).

But if you claim that I am calling for all guns to be taken, I respectfully request a cite of your claim, in context, with a link. Right here, pal. 

 

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

You are dumb enough to deserve it, and "take them all" is a worst case scenario, which may play out (if 70 million Americans are dumb enough to support Trump, at this point).

So besides the concept of free speech, you are also against supporting the candidate of your choice.

Tell us why you bothered to stay in a country that offends your sensibilities so much, Joe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2021 at 12:06 PM, Burning Man said:

My point being that taking assault rifles away from everybody is not at the very top of everyone's agenda.  Despite dems talking about taking away your wife's now lost in a watery grave dogballs, even the D's realize a new AWB is practically impossible to enact in today's climate nor is it necessarily desirable.  I would prefer they concentrate on strengthening existing laws against using guns to commit crimes as well as enacting legislation to keep gunz out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.  Those are the common grounds that both gun nutterz and gun haterz should come together on rather than retreating to extremist corners.  The folks who say "from my cold dead hands" are just as caustic and dangerous as those like @jocal505 and beto who say "take them all".  

Just saying.

The whole "aw shucks they don't really mean it" argument would be more persuasive if I didn't know about the ongoing confiscation programs in places like California, New Jersey, and Connecticut. But I do, so it's not persuasive at all, and gets less so with each round of name-calling directed at me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2021 at 3:39 PM, Burning Man said:

Nupe, sorry but I don't think that's what it means.  You are not transferring a gun by simply letting them shoot it while you're standing next to them.  The gun is never leaving your custody.  The exceptions are if you hand the gun to someone and the guns remains on a range, you don't have to be there present at all times.  It does apply if you "loan" a gun to someone that then takes the weapon away from your person and it leaves your possession.

Sorry for your confusion.

DOGBALLS!

The new Senate bill fixes part of the problem here.

Exceptions to the "universal" background check rule would include transfers at an area designated for the purpose of target shooting AND a transfer that occurs while in the presence of the transferor.

I hereby designate my back yard as a place "for the purpose of target shooting" so that should be good enough for the first part, right? This way I can go inside and get more ammo while leaving an (assault weapon, ordinary .22) in the hands of a transferee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2021 at 6:49 PM, bpm57 said:

 

Of course, beto said nothing about research - just the claim that he (Beto) would ban them all. To much cheering, if you missed the highlights of that debate.

Beto did not say he would ban all guns. He proposed the removal of battle guns from the mainstream of American behavior...and the crowd roared.

And this left an impact on Tom Ray. Tom was crushed.

 

bpm, let's unpack this oft-repeated talking point: Beto is being blamed for the court of public opinion. 

 @Pedagogical Tom

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

Beto did not say he would ban all guns. He proposed the removal of battle guns from the mainstream of American behavior...and the crowd roared.

He mentioned only two. To see what he actually proposes, one has to look at legislation he cosponsored, as I did. And found that, like any other TeamD Presidential candidate, he means ordinary .22's, among other "battle guns."

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

He mentioned only two. To see what he actually proposes, one has to look at legislation he cosponsored, as I did. And found that, like any other TeamD Presidential candidate, he means ordinary .22's, among other "battle guns."

you are not well, and you now hide behind the dogballs nonsense  (um since december of 2016) so we shall turn to beto and di-fi

 

Link to post
Share on other sites