Democrats bite their own noses to spite their faces

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I didn't say any of that John, I just think that legislation giving basic immunity to an industry is wrong... And if someone wants to sue, if they are willing to pay the court costs if they lose...

That's part of the problem - these suits are funded by anti-gun organizations, some of which are paid for by the billionaire owner of Monster.com. The plaintiffs aren't paying a dime, even if they lose.

The gun industry, on the other hand, has to pay millions of dollars to fight off frivolous, unfounded lawsuits all over the country.

I guess if victims of crime all decided to sue you personally, that would be okay too. After all, you support them being able to sue anyone they want, even if they have no case, and basis in law. So what if you went bankrupt defending yourself. Right?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I thought it was quite laughable, I mean come on, what do you need more than 10 bullets for unless maybe you intend to kill multiple people?

I'm sorry to see that you find the killing schoolchildren to be humorous.

I guess there are just no limits too horrible which anti-gun folks won't cross to try and demonize gun owners.

[mnischalke 0]

There REALLY isn't a gunshow loophole. Federally licensed firearms dealers are required, by federal law, to conduct background checks prior to selling a firearm to an individual. These FFL holders comprise 80-90% of all booth holders at gunshows. The rest are people who sell related accessories and some private individuals who are selling personal collections of firearms. The gunshow "loophole" targets these private individuals to create legislation so that all person-to-person firearms transactions are recorded and submitted to the federal government for approval. What these private individuals do at gunshows is no different than taking out an ad in the newspaper and having people over to the house to sell the guns. What this new legislation would do would be to say that this private individual needs to go through an FFL holder to get the background check done. Yes, this covers sales at gunshows, but it also expands the definition of a gunshow to cover the guy's house, if he has enough firearms in the house.

So, if I have a dozen guns in my house and I want to sell one, when I invite someone to my house, I am having a "gunshow." Therefore, I need to record the transaction through the Federal Instant Check system. If my dad wants to give me my grandfather's rifle for christmas, his house becomes a "gunshow" and we must go through an FFL for the instant check.

No matter what people tell you, gun shows are NOT the primary, secondary or even a substantial source of guns for criminals. Criminals will continue to get their guns by going through the system before they commit a crime, by having someone who is not a criminal buy a gun for them, by buying stolen firearms or by buying illegally imported firearms on the black market (a major issue in the UK as these imported guns are generally select-fire [fully-automatic]).

As for "assault weapons," like 10 years ago, they continue to be used in 0.56% of violent crime. Automatic knives are used more frequently in the commission of these crimes than are these cosmeticly challenged, so-called "assault weapons." Its a non-issue that gets huge press coverage when events actually do happen.

The anti-gun movement uses the confusion you and your fellow Americans have over the difference between so-called "assault weapons" and fully-automatic firearms (already completely controlled by the federal government for almost 70 years), in order to draw your contempt for these firearms and support for their cause.

Their cause is to ban all firearms. I don't care how you sugar coat it, that's all this is about. Even the most "middle of the road" gun control sites have the trademark revolver with a slash over it. That is the end-game.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[mnischalke 0]

ya added this after i started to reply...

Quote

but why do people need these weapons?

I assume you skydive. I hate doing this, but I will answer a question with a question and you can come up with the logical answer: Why do you need a skydiving rig?

I have a feeling our answers to both questions could be very, very similar.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[jumper03 0]

Quote

why do people need these weapons?

why do you jump out of an airplane?

Jump

Scars remind us that the past is real

[skydivexxl 0]

Quote

Quote

why do people need these weapons?

why do you jump out of an airplane?

Why is the sky blue? I know my reasons... so why do people need guns in general? Nobody has even come close to an answer?

Blog Clicky

[jumper03 0]

Quote

why do you jump out of an airplane?

[skydivexxl 0]

Quote

Quote

why do you jump out of an airplane?

I know my reasons... so why do people need guns in general? Nobody has even come close to an answer?

[mnischalke 0]

I enjoy the ability to own what some have termed "assault weapons."

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[jumper03 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

why do you jump out of an airplane?

I know my reasons... so why do people need guns in general? Nobody has even come close to an answer?

And I know my reasons for wanting a firearm. Who are you or the government to say no?

[SkydiverRick 0]

School shootings, as a recent epidemic, are done by... wait for it.... GUNS!!!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>The Libs are willing to have kids die as long as they can have this as
>a political issue in the upcoming campaign.

And the conservatives want to let the criminals who kill kids keep their guns.

See? Anyone can come up with a nonsensical sound bite!

No, Conservatives want to preserve the rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Liberals want to bend and change the Constitution to suit their own agenda. Sorry you think these rights are non-sensical sound bites.

[SkydiverRick 0]

And PLEASE don't quote the 2nd amendment.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

And PLEASE don't quote the 2nd amendment.

We wouldn't want the constitution getting in the way.

[newsstand 0]

Quote

Quote

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who opposed the assault weapons ban when Congress approved it 10 years ago but supported the amendment Tuesday ...

Extending the assault weapons ban was the most important issue for gun control groups because the 1994 ban is set to expire Sept. 13. Supporters of the ban cite federal statistics showing crimes involving assault weapons have declined by two-thirds in the past decade.

Does anyone else find this quote hilarious? So let's see, you can no longer buy "assault weapons" for 10 years and the crimes where people used "assault weapons" in the past 10 years have declined? Hmmm...

I banned potatos at my house 10 years ago, so there has been a 2/3 reduction in potato eating at my house in the last decade. I wonder if that's because the only way to get potatos now is to sneak them in when I'm not looking.

Gee, I wonder if the people who woulda used "assault weapons" just went ahead and committed their violent crime with something that anti-gun people think you can't "assault" someone with.

Maybe we should call "guns" "boom-sticks". Then we'd have ZERO "gun" violence in the US.

Well I find your interpretation pretty amusing. It seems to me that we reduced to presence a particular weapon or group of weapons and crime with that weapon declines. That implies that the law worked. But even more interesting are DOJ statistics that indicate gun crime in general has dropped significantly over the last ten years. Because of the ban or not? I don't know. Also about 3% of people who attempt to purchase a weapon have been rejected for various reasons. For instance:

"* About 63% of the rejections were for a prior felony conviction or a current felony indictment. Domestic violence misdemeanor convictions accounted for 10% of the rejections; domestic violence protection orders, 3%."

So 97% of people wishing to purchase a gun had to wait a little while. 3% who should not get a gun didn't, at least not legally.

Or is the DOJ anti-gun too?

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[newsstand 0]

Quote

Quote

assault weapon ban

Please tell us what you think that means? What is the definition of an assault weapon as described in the bill?

Well I would gather from the posts here that the main points have to do with clip size. My personal definition is closer to rifles that are primarily designed for killing people instead of game.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[newsstand 0]

Quote

Quote

And PLEASE don't quote the 2nd amendment.

We wouldn't want the constitution getting in the way.

Damnit, I thought we had hidden the Constitution so they wouldn't trample on it.

[Michele 1]

Hi, Skydivexxl.

Quote

Easy question.... Why?

Edit/deleted my answer. I have sent it to you via pm.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[quade 4]

Michele --

All of the gun affected by the Assault Wepons Ban of 1994 are pretty inappropriate for the purposes of concealed carry. Additionally, they make pretty lousy close quarters combat weapons for self defense at home.

If you'd like to make other arguments, well, fine, but I think those two are pretty bad ones.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Jimbo 0]

Quade, who are you to say what is and isn't appropriate for concealed carry or home defense? What are your qualifications in this matter?

From Michele's post:

Quote

I can protect myself, I think that should be allowed. And if I have multiple assailants (which happens a whole lot, btw - lots of home invasions have a "team", you know?), why should I be limited to the amount of bullets I put into them, to neutralize the threat to my life?

The 10 round limit on any weapon today is a part of the AWB; how is having more than 10 rounds inappropriate for home defense?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[mnischalke 0]

Hey thanks for the doj statistics. Unfortunately, they don't illustrate your position on so-called assault weapons. In 1994, these firearms accounted for less than two percent of all crimes in which a firearm was present. That percentage is two percent today. Overall firearms use in the commission declined and the use of so-called assault weapons declined proportionaly. It's important that I point out the exact wording of something from the DOJ site:

Quote

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.

Notice that didn't say used.

If you want to talk about dangerous firearms, you should be raving over polymer-framed handguns. Their use in crime has skyrocketed in the last 10 years. They are used way more often than so-called assault weapons. Oh, wait. They are just like their all-metal counterparts, except for increased popularity of using molded plastics in the last decade. hmmmmmmm. See the lack of logic? You advocate banning something which has nothing to do with it's propensity for use in crime. In fact, the assault weapons ban was simply made up as the perfect camel's head in the tent.

So, you have issues with a firearm which happens to look like a military rifle, but you have no issues with a firearm which is functionally identical, yet looks like a hunting rifle? Can they not both be used for hunting? Can they not both be used for killing people? Can they not both be used for competitive shooting? Can they not both be misused in the wrong hands? Can a vehicle not be also misused in the wrong hands?

You also seem eager to exclude the effects of tougher penalties for firearms crimes and a thriving economy (thanks mostly to reganomics and the .com boom) during the last decade, but I'll leave that one alone.

Back to the doj statistics. Gunshows were a hot topic here a bit ago. I'd like to call your attention to this little tidbit:

Quote

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

I guess it's really important to go after the most mundane and smallest portions of these issues huh? I am pretty sure we should ban black baseball hats, as I am sure they are used in the commission of a crime far more often than so-called assault weapons or firearms bought at gunshows...

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quade, who are you to say what is and isn't appropriate for concealed carry or home defense?

I came to this conclusion based on the size of the weapons in question and their intended use as stated by Michele.

How many of the weapons addressed by the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 fit in a normal woman's purse or in a drawer by the night stand?

For the purposes she listed as reasons, in my opinion, she'd be better off with a hand gun. One that she could aquire, aim and fire while laying flat on her back while in bed.

Doesn't that make just a bit more sense?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

Lets all face it folks that couldn't have been structured in a more difficult manner. The whole argument comes down to where you lay the emphasis. I prefer to put it here A well regulated militia, while the pro-gun faction put it here the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You ever hear of a compound sentence? Ya ever think that the two independant parts of the sentence may only generally relate to one another, yet one may not be dependant upon the other?

I suggest you read a little of the Federalist Papers so you can get a clearer view of what the people who actually wrote the bill of rights meant.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

Additionally, they make pretty lousy close quarters combat weapons for self defense at home.

Sir, you could not be more wrong. An AR-15 with .223 Hornady TAP ammunition is the preferred combination by most military and law enforcement CQB instructors and ballisitians. The .223 TAP ammunition will not kill the baby/person/team member on the other side of the wall, where as a 9 mm (full metal jacket or hollow point) or a shotgun (slug or buckshot) will because of overpenetration.

Extensive tests have been done on this stuff. Please stick to posting what ya actually know.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[quade 4]

Again, it's a size issue for the stated purpose of the orginal poster.

I simply do not see the person as being able to wake up in the middle of the night, grab an AR-15 from the night stand and be able to wield the weapon while laying in bed. It just doesn't make sense.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver