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 355
  • 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

Think through that statement?   Okay... I'll think it through... You think a bicycle makes for a good mass replacement for the automobile. Giving this some thought.....  Okay... I've go

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

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
20 hours ago, El Mariachi said:

 

FB_IMG_1611431337656.jpg

FUK you!  I just spit up my coffee over that meme.  Brilliant!  :lol:

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.

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?

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

The militias are more about bombing government buildings like in OKC or storming government buildings like the Capitol or protesting mask wearing during a pandemic.

200430-lansing-protest-al-1404_a67eef9d2

Jeff will be along shortly to quibble about what SBR means.

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 5/10/2021 at 2:42 PM, Olsonist said:

Jeff will be along shortly to quibble about what SBR means.

Were the words that define what an SBR is to difficult for you to understand?

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
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Burning Man said:

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.  

 

Like I have said many times, I lawfully own a shotgun. I do not believe any private citizen needs to own an ar-15 or similar assault weapon to keep around the house, hunt deer, or carry in public places. Or shoot kids in schools. The risk of the latter is not worth the former. Ban them.

Edited by loneshark64
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

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.

 

I don’t bother to answer your stupid questions about .22s anymore. And “The People” and the “militias” you referenced are not the same thing. What a militia is and isn’t in this country has changed many times since the founding, especially in 1903, is different from state to state, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether they have suitable weapons. These private gun groups and paramilitaries that show up at state houses with assault weapons and stupid camo getups from cabelas have absolutely fucking nothing to do with the defense of the country. No government is ever going to call these clowns up because they have suitable weapons. That is the most laughably moronic thing I have ever heard. Since the original text of the constitution and now we got the national guard, the naval guard, the state defense forces, and police forces of all all stripes. Not to mention the most capable military on the world. We also have in most states what is called the “unorganized militia”: the abled bodied citizens that could theoretically be drawn from, without regard to ownership of weapons, suitable or otherwise. There is no constitutional or other serious role for these so called militias who were running around with assault weapons threatening people like Gretchen whitmer and being a general pain in the ass during our national election.

 

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

Like I have said many times, I lawfully own a shotgun. I do not believe any private citizen needs to own an ar-15 or similar assault weapon to keep around the house, hunt deer, or carry in public places. Or shoot kids in schools. The risk of the latter is not worth the former. Ban them.

So in other words - you own a gun legally and are not a threat.  But other people who own other guns legally ARE a threat because they are different guns.  You do realize that shotguns kill as many or more people than AR-15s do, right?  Why are you exempt?

And you still continue to evade, deliberately I'm sure, the handgun issue.  AR-15s are used less often to kill people than people use their fists kill people.  Yet I don't see you wanting to cut off people's fists.  Why are you still focused on a tool that is used in murder ~ 2% of the time compared to another tool (handguns) that are used in something like 50% of murder?  Why are you not calling for a ban on handguns???  Why does a private citizen "need" or get to own a handgun that kills far more than an AR-15 that you say is not needed and should be banned?  

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

So in other words - you own a gun legally and are not a threat.  But other people who own other guns legally ARE a threat because they are different guns.  You do realize that shotguns kill as many or more people than AR-15s do, right?  Why are you exempt?

And you still continue to evade, deliberately I'm sure, the handgun issue.  AR-15s are used less often to kill people than people use their fists kill people.  Yet I don't see you wanting to cut off people's fists.  Why are you still focused on a tool that is used in murder ~ 2% of the time compared to another tool (handguns) that are used in something like 50% of murder?  Why are you not calling for a ban on handguns???  Why does a private citizen "need" or get to own a handgun that kills far more than an AR-15 that you say is not needed and should be banned?  

I evade nothing. I do not support banning all guns. I do not support banning all handguns. The Supreme Court has been mostly clear on the right to own guns for hunting and self defense. Somebody above referenced Heller, and one of his lawsuits was about this. It also clarified that owning guns specifically to be in a private militia group is not necessarily protected. It is also clear that the right to bear arms can be restricted; what is at issue is how and how much.

I am like many lawful gun owners who support gun rights but do not drink the NRA koolaid and see no reason for private individuals to own an uzi AR or AK. If people just used them for target practice I wouldn’t care but since they are now used in 8 of 10 mass shootings and these shootings have become an epidemic I want them banned. In general I want strong background checks and for people to lose their right to own a gun the moment they don’t keep them under control or otherwise fuck up. 

Yes. Handguns kill more people. But that horse is out of the barn. They are constitutionally protected as self defense weapons and there are millions of legal and illegal handguns in circulation. Shotguns are ideal for hunting and (with my 18.5”) home defense, and so they are protected. Should certain handguns or features be prohibited? Perhaps. That could be negotiated in a better world where reasonable people still negotiated.

If AR-15s are banned will nutballs use handguns? Yes. But they will miss a LOT more than they hit. Less dead kids. Fact.

Your NRA bullshit propaganda that “nothing can be done so let’s do nothing and let everybody who wants an AR-15 get one at Walmart“ has killed a lot of kids. As has the stupid militia fantasy that ExcodedTom needs a suitable assault weapon so he and the other bass pro shop oath keeper weight watchers warriors can be called up to defend merica.

There are laws against these so-called militias in all 50 states and if we had the balls to enforce them and weren’t so scared of the gun lobby we would have a safer country. 

More not evading: no we should not ban gasoline. Because that has nothing to do with this.

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

I evade nothing. I do not support banning all guns. I do not support banning all handguns. ....    ...

Your NRA bullshit propaganda that “nothing can be done so let’s do nothing and let everybody who wants an AR-15 get one at Walmart“ has killed a lot of kids.....    ....

What?!? You mean, owning a gun did not scramble your brain? I don't think Tom & Jeff & the rest will look kindly on the idea of a calm, rational, gun-owning citizen. They firmly believe that to own a gun, you should be a raving nutball.

- DSK

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

What?!? You mean, owning a gun did not scramble your brain? I don't think Tom & Jeff & the rest will look kindly on the idea of a calm, rational, gun-owning citizen. They firmly believe that to own a gun, you should be a raving nutball.

- DSK

I may have dodged a bullet hahahahahahahaha

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

So in other words - you own a gun legally and are not a threat.

not a threat over 75 yard...for the most part..

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2021 at 8:31 PM, 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.

Wow, profound. So a few hundred murders should result in nationwide bans, yet the ~36K MV deaths every year are not worth mentioning. Does calling them "accidents" make the body count acceptable to you?

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

I do not support banning all guns. I do not support banning all handguns.

Only those that use 100+ year old technology should be banned, right?

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

Yes. Handguns kill more people. But that horse is out of the barn. They are constitutionally protected as self defense weapons and there are millions of legal and illegal handguns in circulation. Shotguns are ideal for hunting and (with my 18.5”) home defense, and so they are protected. Should certain handguns or features be prohibited? Perhaps. That could be negotiated in a better world where reasonable people still negotiated.

AR-15s are far better home defense weapons than Handguns.  Sorry disabuse you of that commonly held myth that says otherwise.  AR-15s are as constitutionally protected as your shotty is.  

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

What?!? You mean, owning a gun did not scramble your brain? I don't think Tom & Jeff & the rest will look kindly on the idea of a calm, rational, gun-owning citizen. They firmly believe that to own a gun, you should be a raving nutball.

- DSK

Ah, Steam Liar being a liar again.  As always, prove that I have ever said anything even remotely along those lines.  It should be exceeding easy to find with a simple search.  But you will tapdance away again from your lie and never once back anything up.  You just can't help yourself, can you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Burning Man said:
14 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I don't think Tom & Jeff & the rest will look kindly on the idea of a calm, rational, gun-owning citizen. They firmly believe that to own a gun, you should be a raving nutball.

 

Ah, Steam Liar being a liar again.  As always, prove that I have ever said anything even remotely along those lines.  It should be exceeding easy to find with a simple search.  But you will tapdance away again from your lie and never once back anything up.  You just can't help yourself, can you?

No lie here.

Of course you yourself never SAID that, in so many words. Just like Mikey never said he's a long-winded bullshitting attention whore.

But it should exceedingly easy to prove either point with a very simple look at a few of your posts.

- DSK

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

No lie here.

Of course you yourself never SAID that, in so many words. Just like Mikey never said he's a long-winded bullshitting attention whore.

But it should exceedingly easy to prove either point with a very simple look at a few of your posts.

- DSK

Post them then.  

But here, I'll start you off with an easy one.  I'm assuming you're talking about posts like this:

 

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

Post them then.  

But here, I'll start you off with an easy one.  I'm assuming you're talking about posts like this:

 

Uh huh

Is that why you're so polite and reasonable in these discussions, like just now...

- DSK

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

Wow, profound. So a few hundred murders should result in nationwide bans, yet the ~36K MV deaths every year are not worth mentioning. Does calling them "accidents" make the body count acceptable to you?

This is getting stupid. As usual. The guy asked the stupid “What about cars? Should we ban CARS???” theoretical that always seems to come up in gun control debates and I tried to answer. Wouldn’t want to EVADE THE QUESTION. The fact is using metaphors for other products for guns never works because it’s not the same. No cars are specifically designed to kill people. They are designed to hopefully not kill people. And cars are not protected by the constitution. But if a new car came out and the ad said “We designed this car not for going places and delivering shit, but to kill people” and every time it was used properly for its intended purpose somebody’s head exploded, most normal people would say “what the everloving fuck?” 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2021 at 8:15 PM, loneshark64 said:

I don’t bother to answer your stupid questions about .22s anymore. And “The People” and the “militias” you referenced are not the same thing. What a militia is and isn’t in this country has changed many times since the founding, especially in 1903, is different from state to state, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether they have suitable weapons. These private gun groups and paramilitaries that show up at state houses with assault weapons and stupid camo getups from cabelas have absolutely fucking nothing to do with the defense of the country. No government is ever going to call these clowns up because they have suitable weapons. That is the most laughably moronic thing I have ever heard. Since the original text of the constitution and now we got the national guard, the naval guard, the state defense forces, and police forces of all all stripes. Not to mention the most capable military on the world. We also have in most states what is called the “unorganized militia”: the abled bodied citizens that could theoretically be drawn from, without regard to ownership of weapons, suitable or otherwise. There is no constitutional or other serious role for these so called militias who were running around with assault weapons threatening people like Gretchen whitmer and being a general pain in the ass during our national election.

 

Well, OK. The Supreme Court indicated in the Miller case that a weapon is protected if it's part of the ordinary military equipment. So,

Which do you think is a more appropriate militia weapon, an AR15 or something we know is constitutionally protected like Otis McDonald's handgun?

Also, do you think you're part of "the people" referenced in the first, fourth, ninth and tenth amendments? How about the second amendment? You're the one talking about small groups of people. I've been talking about one large one: the people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2021 at 10:27 PM, Burning Man said:

AR-15s are as constitutionally protected as your shotty is.  

If not more so.

From US v Miller:

 

Quote

 

'In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.' 'The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.' 'A year later (1632) it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony (Massachusetts).'

13

Also 'Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,' not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.'

 

I'm not a black powder person so am not sure what "bastard musket bore" means. Maybe the 18th century equivalent of battlefield .22's?

I do know that compatibility of ammo was a concern and AR's can be chambered to check that box.

A shotgun is a military gun too and the Justices in Miller might not have "judicially" noticed this because the government argued the case unopposed, but at least a couple of them would have known firsthand that a short shotgun is a very useful military weapon when fighting trench warfare against Germans in WWI.

So this BS really only got by because Jack Miller was gone (and may have been dead) when his case was heard:

Quote

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2021 at 3:38 PM, loneshark64 said:

Wouldn’t want to EVADE THE QUESTION.

What question? You are the person that is "terrified" of "assault weapons". I can't help your mental health issues, I can only point out that there are a long list of things far more likely to kill you on a daily basis then an "assault weapon".

On 5/14/2021 at 3:38 PM, loneshark64 said:

No cars are specifically designed to kill people.

Yet they do an effective job doing so. But NBD, we will just call them "accidents" and ignore them.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2021 at 3:08 AM, Excoded Tom said:

 

Which do you think is a more appropriate militia weapon, an AR15 or something

I would say to be equipped like a modern infantryman, so as to join the well regulated militia if/when it is needed to defend the US against enemies, like the Nincom-coup

 

I assume that means PPE like ceramic vests, etc, the appropriate communications tech so as to be connected to the unit, and lethal weapons like the M4.

 

Of course, I would want the user to be well-trained (regulated) and possibly for the most lethal of the equipment to be housed in local armories.

 

That would seem to be the most effective way to meet the requirements of the 2A

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

What question? You are the person that is "terrified" of "assault weapons". I can't help your mental health issues, I can only point out that there are a long list of things far more likely to kill you on a daily basis then an "assault weapon".

Yet they do an effective job doing so. But NBD, we will just call them "accidents" and ignore them.

 

 

Risk vs reward. Look it up. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2021 at 7:38 PM, Raz&#x27;r said:

I would say to be equipped like a modern infantryman, so as to join the well regulated militia if/when it is needed to defend the US against enemies, like the Nincom-coup

 

I assume that means PPE like ceramic vests, etc, the appropriate communications tech so as to be connected to the unit, and lethal weapons like the M4.

Ideally, I suppose, but that would mean a very small and very wealthy militia, since pre-1986 M4's are rare and expensive. But as long as they have an AR or a battlefield .22, they're all weapons of war, so should be OK.

On 5/17/2021 at 7:38 PM, Raz&#x27;r said:

Of course, I would want the user to be well-trained (regulated) and possibly for the most lethal of the equipment to be housed in local armories.

 

That would seem to be the most effective way to meet the requirements of the 2A

Yeah, we already had fights about that idea at Lexington and Concord and decided that it's best for the People to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves. The redcoats or nincomcoupers might just not want the People to have lethal stuff. It's happened before...

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

Ideally, I suppose, but that would mean a very small and very wealthy militia, since pre-1986 M4's are rare and expensive. But as long as they have an AR or a battlefield .22, they're all weapons of war, so should be OK.

Yeah, we already had fights about that idea at Lexington and Concord and decided that it's best for the People to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves. The redcoats or nincomcoupers might just not want the People to have lethal stuff. It's happened before...

Living in the past. Sad

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Raz&#x27;r said:
39 minutes ago, Excoded Tom said:

Yeah, we already had fights about that idea at Lexington and Concord and decided that it's best for the People to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves. The redcoats or nincomcoupers might just not want the People to have lethal stuff. It's happened before...

Living in the past. Sad

Sure, that's why you can't join the Army unless you bring your own gun.

Stupid as fuck.

And sad, yes

- DSK

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

^^^ The cover sheet, to Miller. Another selective presentation.

 

  • Some states and municipalities supplied the gunz. 
  • Some states failed to supply the guns, and the farmers failed to,as well.
  • Some cities, such as Boston, stored the guns in a common armory. This setup is a strategic advantage, since armory gunz are ready to focus on trouble in unforeseen locations.

The colonists once publicly displayed the weapons from the Boston armory, downtown, as a threat to surly tax collectors. Later, they claimed in court that the display of armory guns was SDU, cuz the French.

The policies and supply of militia weapons varied widely, and was poorly regulated.

All militia guns were not privately held, everywhere.

 

And the average farmers felt imposed upon to have to store a long, impractical, military-grade weapon.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2021 at 6:43 PM, jocal505 said:
On 5/19/2021 at 5:43 PM, Excoded Tom said:

... the average farmers felt imposed upon to have to store a long, impractical, military-grade weapon.

We have wider choices these days. A battlefield .22, in addition to its military applications, is useful for eradicating squirrels or wabbits or even blasting a stump if one is in your home and menacing you. The stump was indoors, right?

Besides, the modern debate is not about whether The People should be required to own battlefield .22s or other weapons of war. It's about whether we're allowed to own them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2021 at 5:56 PM, Raz&#x27;r said:
On 5/19/2021 at 5:43 PM, Excoded Tom said:

Ideally, I suppose, but that would mean a very small and very wealthy militia, since pre-1986 M4's are rare and expensive. But as long as they have an AR or a battlefield .22, they're all weapons of war, so should be OK.

Yeah, we already had fights about that idea at Lexington and Concord and decided that it's best for the People to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves. The redcoats or nincomcoupers might just not want the People to have lethal stuff. It's happened before...

Expand  

Living in the past. Sad

The nincomcoup really wasn't that long ago.

Do you really think the Trump administration would open the armories to those who might resist it?

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

We have wider choices these days. A battlefield .22, in addition to its military applications, is useful for eradicating squirrels or wabbits or even blasting a stump if one is in your home and menacing you. The stump was indoors, right?

Besides, the modern debate is not about whether The People should be required to own battlefield .22s or other weapons of war. It's about whether we're allowed to own them.

DNR, since it insults my intelligence. You are in a rut, my friend.

You see, when I get to "battlefield .22"  etc, the game is off, Expectorate Tom. I will not stoop that low... and a wonderful life awaits me. 

Phlegm from Tom Ray, lots of it. A sad realm has enveloped a good man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2021 at 4:23 AM, Steam Flyer said:

Uh huh

Is that why you're so polite and reasonable in these discussions, like just now...

- DSK

Calling you a liar is absolutely reasonable and polite, since it's 100% true.  I could call you a lot worse and still be accurate, but the polite thing to do is focus on the one dramatic character flaw.  You just can't help yourself from making shit up about people when you run out of actual counters to their position.  You might as well just devolve to calling them "Oh yeah, but what you - poopie head!" for the level of childishness that you constantly display here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2021 at 4:23 AM, Steam Flyer said:
On 5/13/2021 at 10:18 PM, Burning Man said:

Post them then.  

But here, I'll start you off with an easy one.  I'm assuming you're talking about posts like this:

 

Expand   Expand  

Expand  

Expand  

Uh huh

Is that why you're so polite and reasonable in these discussions, like just now...

- DSK

So anyway, I gave you one example of my position on gunz.  You said it should be "exceedingly easy to prove that I claimed that to be a gun owner - you had to be a raving nutball".  So here's your chance to show any of those posts where I said or even inferred that.  Remember, it should be "exceedingly easy".  Your words.  And it's been how many days since you posted that? Tik tok, douglas.....  balls in your court.

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

So anyway, I gave you one example of my position on gunz.  You said it should be "exceedingly easy to prove that I claimed that to be a gun owner - you had to be a raving nutball".  So here's your chance to show any of those posts where I said or even inferred that.  Remember, it should be "exceedingly easy".  Your words.  And it's been how many days since you posted that? Tik tok, douglas.....  balls in your court.

Still got sand in your va-jayjay about being called a raving gun nutter? And you wanna rant 'n rave about it, to prove I'm wrong?

Go on with your bad self.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites