Jump to content

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually, that's complete bullshit

The mass shooting has a great place in US history. An honored tradition, you might say. Been going on since before Ben Franklin flew a kite.

It's only since we started having TV news and people realized that it isn't just your crazy uncle shooting a half dozen neighbors, it's happening almost all the time almost everywhere, that people started thinking "hmm, maybe this is a bad thing. Maybe it's a problem"

- DSK

 

Can you name just seven 'notable and/or newsworthy mass shootings' that occurred in America before April 30th, 1993?.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 250
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Easy peasy Wikipedia picks it up in the 1920s and includes things like the Tulsa race "riot" (ie mass murder and arson against black people by numerous white people) but it also will send you to

I can sorta tell you have never been to a USAean shopping mall . . 

dogballs  

Posted Images

44 minutes ago, Randro said:

image.png.2c330f2f20bc98d89755654fb7df0bd5.png

Bumped to new page

I'd hate for Jeffie to miss it.

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

Bumped to new page

I'd hate for Jeffie to miss it.

Are you & JokeAwf in some sort of bizarre contest to see who can be the most childish, obnoxious, annoying and ignorant cunt on S/A? Not sure what 1st Place will get ya.....but I can guarantee what it WON'T get you. And that is......respect.....:lol:

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

Are you & JokeAwf in some sort of bizarre contest to see who can be the most childish, obnoxious, annoying and ignorant cunt on S/A? Not sure what 1st Place will get ya.....but I can guarantee what it WON'T get you. And that is......respect.....:lol:

Respect?  Not getting respect from you racist gun freakz is a ...

Badge_Honour.png

 

 

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

This 'mass shooting' shit was pretty much non-existent.....until the internet came into being, the head docs and pharma companies began to collude and make a fortune on psycho-tropic drugs, kids growing up without their Dads around, the fuking Hollywooders.....and violent music videos arrived.......

 

We redefined mass shootings to be 5 or more killed not including the offender which reduced the number of mass shootings.

Of course the Aussie hoplophobes will use any definition of mass shooting apart from ours that boosts the number of mass shootings to take away your constitutional rights.

The gun control freaks all want to ban semi auto rifles yet the evidence shows pistols are more deadly in mass shootings yet none of the gun control freaks ever mention banning the type of gun that is used far more often with homicide.

Is The Journal of the American College of Surgeons a credible source with this they say pistols are more deadly than rifles in mass shootings.

Quote

Wounding Patterns Based on Firearm Type in Civilian Public Mass Shootings in the United States

Conclusions

Civilian public mass shooting events with a handgun are more lethal than those associated with use of a rifle.

 

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

Can you name just seven 'notable and/or newsworthy mass shootings' that occurred in America before April 30th, 1993?.....

Easy peasy

Wikipedia picks it up in the 1920s and includes things like the Tulsa race "riot" (ie mass murder and arson against black people by numerous white people) but it also will send you to "rampage killers in the USA" which includes individuals who killed more than 7 people in a single incident and goes back to 1889... notable incident in 1908 Okmulgee OK with the words "also killed a horse"

Looks like about 50+ from the 1980s on back

In the era of muzzle loaders, mass shootings were more difficult but there were still murderously deranged people who plotted to acquire the equipment to kill a lot of people at once. Seems like the USA has and has always had a higher percentage; maybe because of the frontier culture or maybe it's something in the water. Other countries have them too but have arranged to make it more difficult for them to get rapid-fire guns instead of giving ranting loonies the political power to hand them out like lollipops

Now that I'm sure you're all pissed off in righteous fury and completely irrational, I'll give a link to a nice bit of reading on the topic, for others

http://behindthetower.org/a-brief-history-of-mass-shootings

You're welcome

- DSK

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Randro said:

image.png.2c330f2f20bc98d89755654fb7df0bd5.png

I'm in no way suggesting that we deliberately kill people off.  But it is a fact that if the planet had a few less Billion people on it - it would be a healthier place.  Perhaps COVID was just Mother Nature doing a dress rehearsal.

Anywho..... Despite @Meat Wad's often scatterbrained musings, he's correct on this topic.  One of the biggest contributing factors, IMHO, is population density.  The vast majority of the murder in the US occurs in densely populated urban centers.   Not many mass shootings or daily gang war shootings are happening in rural KS, despite the likely fact that the vast majority of rural Kansans are well armed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2021 at 9:51 PM, Burning Man said:
On 2/17/2021 at 6:58 AM, Excoded Tom said:

Biden's 'Commonsense' Gun Controls Make Little Sense

The title is a bit charitable in my view. Some make no sense whatsoever.

Some make no sense whatsoever.  Some do.  The two that stand out to me are the 80% lowers called "ghost guns" and the pistol braces.  The 80% lowers are definitely a way to circumvent the purchasing process that requires BGCs.  If you want to manufacture your own weapons, as some do - you can apply for and get an FFL SOT 7 license or go through the BATF Form 1 process.  I just don't see it being a reasonable avenue for the vast majority of folks who want an AR.

The pistol brace thing is a joke, right up there with Bump Stockas.  I actually have a "pistol" of a cloned MP-5.  The pistol "brace" is nothing more than a folding stock set up to be fired from the shoulder like a rifle.  I love it, but it is a 100% a way to circumvent the SBR requirements.  I don't have any firm numbers, but I would bet these "pistols" are used in a lot of the urban gang crime.  

I also like his push for more red flag laws as well as means to keep and store guns when someone wants to voluntarily surrender their weapons when they are having "issues".  I heard a good podcast news article in the last few days about the fact that a lot of people with suicidal thoughts want to get their guns out of the house before they do something bad, but there are just no avenues to turn them in somewhere for safe keeping.  LE won't generally take them and store them w/o a mental health commitment or court order - so a lot of people have nowhere to turn.  

I also think UBCs are a good thing.  I know you think that every time someone else touches your dogballs, it constitutes a "transfer".  But I think saner heads can prevail and make sure the language is more targeted.  I personally don't like the idea of selling a weapon to someone I don't know and wondering if the Sheriff is going to knock on my door one day when it was used in a crime sometime later.  OTOH, I do think there are ways to streamline the process where it doesn't have to involve finding an FFL and paying ridiculous fees and such. I've detailed those ways numerous times in the past here.  

Ghost guns are the "problem" that stubbornly refuses to materialize. Banning 80% lowers will just result in 79% lowers, but still making guns from kits will continue to be a hobbyist thing for the most part.

Speaking of making guns, setting up a pistol brace to be fired from the shoulder is making an NFA weapon. The ATF was very clear on that point a few years back.

You're right that it's like bump stocka. In that case, after Obama repeatedly determined that he did not have the power to reinterpret the law to ban them, Trump reversed that determination and reinterpreted the law to say what it does not say, resulting in howls of outrage from TeamD. Just kidding, they'll go wtih Trump's constitutional wisdom over Obama's any day, as long as the result is gungrabby. I'm glad the 6th Circuit recently said that Obama was right and Trump was wrong.

As mentioned in the relevant thread, I support the idea of red flag laws, but am concerned about frivolous use of them because people like Bull Gator exist. Biden seems to want to leave the door wide open for abuse.

Quote

Perhaps Biden's model legislation will address that problem by recommending robust safeguards for gun owners who might be wrongly deemed dangerous. But I am not optimistic, since he wants to let "family members" as well as "law enforcement" petition courts for gun confiscation orders. That policy eliminates a layer of protection by letting a long list of possibly biased or aggrieved relatives file petitions directly without having their complaints vetted by police or prosecutors.

As for taking guns from potentially suicidal people, it's a question before the Supreme Court at the moment, as mentioned in the relevant thread. One of the problems with law enforcement taking them can be the refusal to return them, as the case demonstrates. Probably less of a problem if they are turned over to friends or family instead, but I guess that's just not an "avenue" for some reason. What is the reason, by the way? 

There's no such thing as UBC's and none have ever been proposed, nor will they be. There are always exceptions and I read about them. That's how I know that my wife's .22, back when it was an assault weapon, would require a background check before allowing visitors to shoot it in our yard under the currently proposed (assault weapon, battlefield .22) ban. You made up stuff that isn't in the law we were talking about to try to refute it, but it's just stuff you made up. As for making sure the language is more targeted, I responded with a BG check bill that does say the stuff you made up and would allow such a transfer, but that's not the mainstream TeamD ban on battlefield .22's and other weapons of mass destruction that we were discussing.

As for saner heads prevailing, do you mean the ones who believe in indoor militias, believe the 2nd amendment applies only to 18th century technology, and believe Trump is wiser than Obama about constitutional law? I think grabbier heads will continue to prevail.

Since you apparently made a short barrel rifle and you own suppressors, you might want to learn about why NFA gun trusts exist.
 

Quote

 

...an NFA Title II weapon, such as a suppressor, can only be used by the person to whom it is registered and no one else. Violation of this law is a felony. Simply letting a friend or family member fire a few rounds with a Title II weapon at the local range or at the deer lease is a felony! A gun trust can be used to allow for the use of the Title II weapon by multiple parties. Each party who will have access to and use of the weapon must be a co-trustee of the gun trust and must go through the same required background check and identification requirements.

...

 

 

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

Speaking of making guns, setting up a pistol brace to be fired from the shoulder is making an NFA weapon. The ATF was very clear on that point a few years back.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.  Do you mean "setting up" as in configuring the brace to be fired from the shoulder?  Or are you saying that the act of putting it to your shoulder itself is setting it up?

Most of the braces I've seen (like the one I own) are already set up to easily be fired from the shoulder like a rifle.  In fact they are exactly like a rifle stock.  The brace aspect is a joke just to skirt the rules to not have to go through the SBR Form 4 process.  

This is the "pistol" I own

Looking for MP5 clone - Gear - IllinoisCarry.com

That's not a brace, it's a rifle stock.  If the intent and spirit of the rule should be that it doesn't count as an SBR if I don't shoulder it - then by that logic - all my other SBRs are not SBRs if I don't ever shoulder them.

C'Mon Tom - it is weasel shit like this that kills our credibility as gun owners.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burning Man said:
15 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

Speaking of making guns, setting up a pistol brace to be fired from the shoulder is making an NFA weapon. The ATF was very clear on that point a few years back.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.  Do you mean "setting up" as in configuring the brace to be fired from the shoulder?  Or are you saying that the act of putting it to your shoulder itself is setting it up?

The ATF's answers to both those questions can be found at the link I provided.

Do I have to spoon feed you like you're jocal or TeamD Ranger or something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know what I heard was Jeff callin Tom "weasel shit." 

Those were the words Joe Calhoun has been searching for!

Forget dogballs. It's weasel shit.

jes sayin

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

Ya know what I heard was Jeff callin Tom "weasel shit." 

Those were the words Joe Calhoun has been searching for!

Forget dogballs. It's weasel shit.

jes sayin

It's not as slippery as owl shit, I hear. But I still don't want to fall down in some.

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

Ya know what I heard was Jeff callin Tom "weasel shit." 

Those were the words Joe Calhoun has been searching for!

Forget dogballs. It's weasel shit.

jes sayin

a parade of nonsense merges with a predictable future @Excoded Tom

hmmm, i am in the catbird seat

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the grabbers say we shouldn't allow weapons of war will they come after Remington 700 hunting rifles which the military use?

 

 

wow.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we skip the rest and just go to the Uzi part?

 

 

uzi.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/16/2021 at 6:49 AM, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Can we skip the rest and just go to the Uzi part?

And ordinary .22s?

Still waiting for Beto to be appointed “Gun Taking Away Tsar”.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall, the ATF changed their guidance on the shouldering of pistol braces. The guidance itself has been all over the place, and the idea that the act of appearing to shoulder something going from perfectly legal to a 5 year sentence always seemed like it would not survive legal scrutiny. It does make a bit of a mockery of the SBR rule though, since a pistol with a brace is very nearly the functional equivalent of an SBR. 

Frankly, I think they run into an ADA violation if they ban them. Their "intended use" after all is allowing someone with a disability to fire something like an AR15 pistol. Maybe they get around it by limiting their use to those with an actual disability which prevents traditional use of a pistol? Unless there is some other obscure rule which would disallow that. HIPAA maybe? Dunno, one for the lawyers to sort out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2021 at 4:43 PM, LenP said:

As I recall, the ATF changed their guidance on the shouldering of pistol braces. The guidance itself has been all over the place, and the idea that the act of appearing to shoulder something going from perfectly legal to a 5 year sentence always seemed like it would not survive legal scrutiny. It does make a bit of a mockery of the SBR rule though, since a pistol with a brace is very nearly the functional equivalent of an SBR. 

Frankly, I think they run into an ADA violation if they ban them. Their "intended use" after all is allowing someone with a disability to fire something like an AR15 pistol. Maybe they get around it by limiting their use to those with an actual disability which prevents traditional use of a pistol? Unless there is some other obscure rule which would disallow that. HIPAA maybe? Dunno, one for the lawyers to sort out. 

That's not quite what the ATF guidance on pistol braces said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2021 at 3:31 PM, loneshark64 said:

And ordinary .22s?

Still waiting for Beto to be appointed “Gun Taking Away Tsar”.

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 battlefield .22's and other such weapons of mass destruction? Biden still knows those are his elk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Excoded Tom said:

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 battlefield .22's and other such weapons of mass destruction? Biden still knows those are his elk.

Beto’s audience is female liberal arts undergrads who interpret his use of the word “fuck” in political speeches as authenticity and will collectively holler “WOOOOOO” at anything he says. Beto is a non factor who now runs a phone bank with dozens of phones but the call from Biden has yet to arrive.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's about right. Similarly, Ted Cruz' audience is male high school dropouts who interpret his Baconator recipe as authenticity. In his way, Cruz is also a non-factor.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

Beto’s audience is female liberal arts undergrads who interpret his use of the word “fuck” in political speeches as authenticity and will collectively holler “WOOOOOO” at anything he says. Beto is a non factor who now runs a phone bank with dozens of phones but the call from Biden has yet to arrive.

I was talking about the audience at the TeamD debate where he vowed to take battlefield .22's and other weapons of mass destruction. I doubt that was only Beto people.

But instead of trying to read the minds of a bunch of strangers, how about you? Do you support his idea to take battlefield .22's?

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

That's not quite what the ATF guidance on pistol braces said.

The pdf is a scan so I can't copy and paste, however my reading of that letter fits with what I said. The mere act of shouldering a pistol brace does not make it an SBA. One would need to take steps to alter it. They gave a couple examples, such as positioning it on the buffer tube such that it no longer functions as a brace, but could only be used as a stock, and removing the strap, which would make it useless as a brace, but useful as a stock. 

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

I was talking about the audience at the TeamD debate where he vowed to take battlefield .22's and other weapons of mass destruction. I doubt that was only Beto people.

But instead of trying to read the minds of a bunch of strangers, how about you? Do you support his idea to take battlefield .22's?

I do not support restricting ordinary .22s or my 18.5” barrel 12 gauge. Both of which can be used in a different configuration as battlefield weapons. I understand that the line between “assault” weapon and non is always going to be grey. But it is clear to me that AK and AR assault weapons, having been used in a high percentage on mass shootings, should be banned for private ownership. Yes you can hunt deer with them but they are not optimal deer hunting rifles. They are optimal human hunting rifles. 

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

Did you hear the roar of the crowd when Beto talked about taking battlefield .22's and other such weapons of mass destruction?

You mention Beto's cheering crowd a lot. Why should that display bother you? Is it hard to accept?

 

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

The pdf is a scan so I can't copy and paste, however my reading of that letter fits with what I said. The mere act of shouldering a pistol brace does not make it an SBA. One would need to take steps to alter it. They gave a couple examples, such as positioning it on the buffer tube such that it no longer functions as a brace, but could only be used as a stock, and removing the strap, which would make it useless as a brace, but useful as a stock. 

Sorry for my misunderstanding. I took this part

On 4/29/2021 at 4:43 PM, LenP said:

the idea that the act of appearing to shoulder something going from perfectly legal to a 5 year sentence always seemed like it would not survive legal scrutiny

to mean that you thought enforcement guidance was based on putting it to your shoulder. If would have to be interpreted and enforced that way to get any legal scrutiny.

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

I do not support restricting ordinary .22s or my 18.5” barrel 12 gauge. Both of which can be used in a different configuration as battlefield weapons. I understand that the line between “assault” weapon and non is always going to be grey. But it is clear to me that AK and AR assault weapons, having been used in a high percentage on mass shootings, should be banned for private ownership. Yes you can hunt deer with them but they are not optimal deer hunting rifles. They are optimal human hunting rifles. 

That's why I asked about battlefield .22's, not ordinary ones. The difference is hardly "grey." If you look up the assault weapons bans proposed in the House and Senate, they're very clear and specific. Before an unfortunate boating accident earlier this year, my wife's gun was clearly classified as a battlefield .22 to be banned because of the adjustable stock. Putting back the original stock made it ordinary again, and outside the definitions in those proposals. So let me ask again: do you support banning battlefield .22's like the example I gave?

As for weapons that are what our Supreme Court might call "part of the ordinary military equipment," they made it pretty clear that those are within the ambit of second amendment protection.

Seems to me that even ordinary .22's that are clearly exempted from currently proposed bans at the federal level might be part of the ordinary military equipment anyway.

  

On 3/26/2018 at 6:40 AM, Excoded Tom said:

I learned something about battlefield .22's today.

On 3/25/2018 at 8:38 AM, badlatitude said:

Did you tell them that the Israeli Army uses them for sniper weapons? 

http://www.ruger1022.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/8.jpg

Operator armed with the Ruger 10/22 Suppressed sniper rifle during the Israeli-Palestinian clashes in the Occupied Territories, October 2000. Note that the sniper has a Sig Sauer handgun tacked in his vest.

Expand  Expand  


I guess badlat must have forgotten to include his source.


The one in that picture doesn't appear to have an adjustable stock but it's obviously something used by the Israeli army, so is part of the ordinary military equipment.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Excoded Tom said:

Sorry for my misunderstanding. I took this part

to mean that you thought enforcement guidance was based on putting it to your shoulder. If would have to be interpreted and enforced that way to get any legal scrutiny.

That was the accepted interpretation of the letter that came before this one. This seems to be the letter correcting that. They have had several conflicting sets of guidance on this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2021 at 1:43 PM, LenP said:

As I recall, the ATF changed their guidance on the shouldering of pistol braces. The guidance itself has been all over the place, and the idea that the act of appearing to shoulder something going from perfectly legal to a 5 year sentence always seemed like it would not survive legal scrutiny. It does make a bit of a mockery of the SBR rule though, since a pistol with a brace is very nearly exactly the functional equivalent of an SBR. 

Frankly, I think they run into an ADA violation if they ban them. Their "intended use" after all is allowing someone with a disability to fire something like an AR15 pistol. Maybe they get around it by limiting their use to those with an actual disability which prevents traditional use of a pistol? Unless there is some other obscure rule which would disallow that. HIPAA maybe? Dunno, one for the lawyers to sort out. 

FTFY.  I have a "pistol" with a brace.  It is an SBR.  In fact when I bought it, I assumed it was an SBR as I had never heard of the whole "Pistol brace" thing before.  I asked about filling out the ATF paperwork for the Form 4 SBR stamp and the gunshop guy said "No form 4 required, it's a 'pistol'".  I was like WTF???  Oh well, it saved me $200 and a year waiting period.  

I had always thought a traditional "Brace" was more like this wire thing that clips over your forearm. 

image.png.e84def32c7d4d536fd248f5a3e25c0a0.png

Modern braces are rifle stocks in all but name.

AR15-SBR-PSA-AKV-Pistol-600x399.jpg

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

FTFY.  I have a "pistol" with a brace.  It is an SBR.  In fact when I bought it, I assumed it was an SBR as I had never heard of the whole "Pistol brace" thing before.  I asked about filling out the ATF paperwork for the Form 4 SBR stamp and the gunshop guy said "No form 4 required, it's a 'pistol'".  I was like WTF???  Oh well, it saved me $200 and a year waiting period.  

I had always thought a traditional "Brace" was more like this wire thing that clips over your forearm. 

image.png.e84def32c7d4d536fd248f5a3e25c0a0.png

Modern braces are rifle stocks in all but name.

AR15-SBR-PSA-AKV-Pistol-600x399.jpg

nintchdbpict000263205813.jpg

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

That was the accepted interpretation of the letter that came before this one. This seems to be the letter correcting that. They have had several conflicting sets of guidance on this. 

Ah, gotcha now.

Related question: can we get a new acronym? I always figured SBR stood for "scary black rifle."

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2021 at 7:41 AM, Excoded Tom said:

do you support banning battlefield .22's like the example I gave?

I support banning ARs and AKs. The rest is political, negotiating the list. If your battlefield .22s get negotiated onto that list on the way to banning and confiscating AR-15s and variants I can live with that. And because most active shooters that used AR type weapons also had handguns we need much better controls on who can get and keep a handgun. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2021 at 5:23 PM, loneshark64 said:

I support banning ARs and AKs. The rest is political, negotiating the list. If your battlefield .22s get negotiated onto that list on the way to banning and confiscating AR-15s and variants I can live with that. And because most active shooters that used AR type weapons also had handguns we need much better controls on who can get and keep a handgun. 

 

If? Some battlefield .22's unquestionably did "get negotiated" onto the list. See here for the Senate version and here for the House one.

By the way, everyone likes to be in on a secret, so I should inform you that

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

the secret TeamD cabal that “write our laws”

are all listed by name on pages linked to those. They're really bad at keeping a secret.

You'll be pleased to learn that lots of hanguns also "got negotiated" onto those lists.

You may be chagrined to learn that the proposals don't involve confiscation and only paranoid and delusional people think that could be a goal here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Confiscation of ar-15s would be good. The sooner the better. My paranoid delusion is that more people will get shot by loonballs with ar-15s.

The right’s problem on this is they have forgotten how to negotiate in the Senate, and elsewhere. Time and time again they take this “over my dead body” “out of my cold dead hands” posture. Meanwhile most Americans are tired of ar-15s causing so many cold dead hands.
 

This week’s example is the dems just used the reconciliation process to unilaterally pass their spending bomb. They can do it one more time this year and one more next year. Every senator knows this. So Biden puts forward his next spending package with a bunch of big infrastructure stretch items in it, but no immigration stuff, and indicates he would compromise on many of the items again. So what does McConnell do? Announces that Biden will get “not one Republican vote”. Over my dead body. So what do the dems do? They go ok, that’s clear. Fuck it, let’s load in all the immigration stuff. Now they just have to negotiate with Manchin (a good negotiator) again. Easy peasy, bill passes by end of summer. Lots of examples. The gun thing is harder, they don’t have the votes. But a day will come in the next ten years when the dems have the votes and possibly no filibuster and then there will be no need to negotiate.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2021 at 6:48 AM, loneshark64 said:

Confiscation of ar-15s would be good. The sooner the better. My paranoid delusion is that more people will get shot by loonballs with ar-15s.

The right’s problem on this is they have forgotten how to negotiate in the Senate, and elsewhere. Time and time again they take this “over my dead body” “out of my cold dead hands” posture. Meanwhile most Americans are tired of ar-15s causing so many cold dead hands.
 

This week’s example is the dems just used the reconciliation process to unilaterally pass their spending bomb. They can do it one more time this year and one more next year. Every senator knows this. So Biden puts forward his next spending package with a bunch of big infrastructure stretch items in it, but no immigration stuff, and indicates he would compromise on many of the items again. So what does McConnell do? Announces that Biden will get “not one Republican vote”. Over my dead body. So what do the dems do? They go ok, that’s clear. Fuck it, let’s load in all the immigration stuff. Now they just have to negotiate with Manchin (a good negotiator) again. Easy peasy, bill passes by end of summer. Lots of examples. The gun thing is harder, they don’t have the votes. But a day will come in the next ten years when the dems have the votes and possibly no filibuster and then there will be no need to negotiate.

 

Alternatively, the Republican-controlled legislatures in the majority of states put a stop to the nonsense of actually counting votes, and the USA becomes a one-party autocracy. Economic collapse to follow, but you can have all the gunz you ever want.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Alternatively, the Republican-controlled legislatures in the majority of states put a stop to the nonsense of actually counting votes, and the USA becomes a one-party autocracy. Economic collapse to follow, but you can have all the gunz you ever want.

- DSK

And any religion you want, as long as it's OK with the quadrant warden.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2021 at 8:37 PM, Excoded Tom said:

Which do you think is a more appropriate militia weapon, an AR15 or something we know is constitutionally protected like Dick Heller's 9 round .22 revolver?

I don’t care about banning “militia weapons.” That is not what this is about. Americans who are asking for better gun control are not doing it to mess with so-called militias. They want to stop school shootings. The so-called militias are not doing school shootings.

This is the problem: people like you are not listening. You hear “stop school shootings with assault weapons” and conflate that into “they want to stop militias!”

This is not to say these so-called militias make any sense. They don’t, they are totally asinine. Calling these things “militias” is like calling the old ladies who kayak past my house the Royal Navy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2021 at 9:12 PM, Steam Flyer said:

Alternatively, the Republican-controlled legislatures in the majority of states put a stop to the nonsense of actually counting votes, and the USA becomes a one-party autocracy.

Nice projection. I guess you have never actually read HR1 - or you simply don't care about it when the (D) party is angling for permanent control.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2021 at 6:48 AM, loneshark64 said:

My paranoid delusion is that more people will get shot by loonballs with ar-15s.

I'm sure there are drugs that will help with your delusions. I'm far more concerned about car accidents on my way to work. Maybe we should ban motor vehicles as well.

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

I'm sure there are drugs that will help with your delusions. I'm far more concerned about car accidents on my way to work. Maybe we should ban motor vehicles as well.

If it is a car that was (a) specifically designed to kill people, and (b) was used in 8 out of 10 recent mass shootings, then yes. Ban that car.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

If it is a car that was (a) specifically designed to kill people, and (b) was used in 8 out of 10 recent mass shootings, then yes. Ban that car.

And gasoline.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2021 at 3:48 AM, loneshark64 said:

Confiscation of ar-15s would be good. The sooner the better. My paranoid delusion is that more people will get shot by loonballs with ar-15s.

And I'll continue to point out that < 2% of all gun related homicides are committed with rifles of ANY type.  

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-20

If my math is correct - about 365 total murders were committed with a rifle in the entire US in 2019.  In that same year - Illinois (presumably mostly chicago) alone had more handgun murders than the entire number of rifles used in the entire US.  More people are killed with fists, hands and feet than there are will "assault rifles".  

When you grabbers start offering real solutions targeted to real problems that go to the root cause of the issues, maybe you'll get more buy-in from lawful, non-gang bangers like me and the other 100 million non criminal gun-owners in the US.  

But my gut says that you don't actually care about the Negros in Chicago getting murdered by other Negros with handguns.  If any of you actually did more than just pay lip service to BLM, you would be all over addressing the real issues of why this violent crime is happening.  If Black Lives really mattered to any of you - you'd call for Joe to end the War on Drugs today.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2021 at 1:30 PM, loneshark64 said:
On 5/7/2021 at 8:37 PM, Excoded Tom said:

Which do you think is a more appropriate militia weapon, an AR15 or something we know is constitutionally protected like Dick Heller's 9 round .22 revolver?

I don’t care about banning “militia weapons.” That is not what this is about. Americans who are asking for better gun control are not doing it to mess with so-called militias. They want to stop school shootings. The so-called militias are not doing school shootings.

This is the problem: people like you are not listening. You hear “stop school shootings with assault weapons” and conflate that into “they want to stop militias!”

This is not to say these so-called militias make any sense. They don’t, they are totally asinine. Calling these things “militias” is like calling the old ladies who kayak past my house the Royal Navy.

You not only failed to answer the question, you didn't understand it. I wasn't talking about "so-called militias" only, but about a larger group referenced repeatedly in the Bill of Rights: the People.

A militia can be assembled from the People, if they are armed with suitable weapons.

Weapons like AR15's and battlefield .22's that are what our Supreme Court would call "part of the ordinary military equipment" are exactly the kind that should be most protected, if one wishes to observe, not violate, the Bill of Rights.

You want to ban the best militia weapons? There's an amendment process. Use it first.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ishmael said:
11 hours ago, loneshark64 said:

If it is a car that was (a) specifically designed to kill people, and (b) was used in 8 out of 10 recent mass shootings, then yes. Ban that car.

And gasoline.

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a car is a good guy with a car

And if arsonists are outlawed from buying gasoline, then only outlaws will commit arson.... oh wait

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...