Assult weapons ban dropped in the Senate

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Dang. The GOP will be scrambling for something else to whine about.

On can only hope. Both parties provide endless amusement and the gun debates growing a little stale.

It's only stale because there are no fresh bodies, dammit.

They don't get any fresher than kin-de-gardeners. LOL

[rushmc 23]

There are times when you are not funny

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Dang. The GOP will be scrambling for something else to whine about.

On can only hope. Both parties provide endless amusement and the gun debates growing a little stale.

It's only stale because there are no fresh bodies, dammit.

They don't get any fresher than kin-de-gardeners. LOL

Main point is being missed. Assault weapons= AR15. There are no AR15 for sale in the US. Also, there is no ammo for AR15

HENCE: Senate doesn't need to ban them.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

There are times when you are not funny

Too late. ManagingPrime already LOL'd me.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Main point is being missed. Assault weapons= AR15. There are no AR15 for sale in the US. Also, there is no ammo for AR15

HENCE: Senate doesn't need to ban them.

There's LOTS of ARs for sale in the US. All the manufacturers are working three shifts, 7 days a week.
It's just that the demand is so high, they can't keep up, so the waiting lists are very long.

But the people who are at the top of the lists are getting their rifles. And the lists are moving fairly quickly.

Ammo is the same. Lots of production, just a lot more demand than capacity.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[1969912 0]

An 80% lower that I ordered in November just shipped. Order one now, and delivery is expected next Feb/March.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

REASON: There ain't no friggin 223 ammo on the shelves from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and from the Canada to the Mexico border. Guns without ammo are useless relics that need no ban.

Really?

I was at the Houston Gun Show this past weekend...you are incorrect.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

REASON: There ain't no friggin 223 ammo on the shelves from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and from the Canada to the Mexico border. Guns without ammo are useless relics that need no ban.

Really? I was at the Houston Gun Show this past weekend...you are incorrect.

Psst...he made it up, without bothering to look it up. Again.

[regulator 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Dang. The GOP will be scrambling for something else to whine about.

On can only hope. Both parties provide endless amusement and the gun debates growing a little stale.

It's only stale because there are no fresh bodies, dammit.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Then this would be your opportunitity to take one for obama and go out on a killing spree.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

He never even said it's what he wanted. He said he wanted them to look at the issue. I realize that confuses some people, but considering an issue isn't the same thing as being a dictator.

it's only fair, 8 years ago there were a lot of ASSuptions as well made about what the other guy was thinking in his private thoughts

It makes it easier to have contentious threads.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

REASON: There ain't no friggin 223 ammo on the shelves from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and from the Canada to the Mexico border. Guns without ammo are useless relics that need no ban.

Really? I was at the Houston Gun Show this past weekend...you are incorrect.

Psst...he made it up, without bothering to look it up. Again.

http://www.luckygunner.com/rifle/223-remington-ammo

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

REASON: There ain't no friggin 223 ammo on the shelves from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and from the Canada to the Mexico border. Guns without ammo are useless relics that need no ban.

Really? I was at the Houston Gun Show this past weekend...you are incorrect.

Psst...he made it up, without bothering to look it up. Again.

http://www.luckygunner.com/rifle/223-remington-ammo

It is starting to show up again. But it is double or more the price than it was 6 months ago

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

REASON: There ain't no friggin 223 ammo on the shelves from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and from the Canada to the Mexico border. Guns without ammo are useless relics that need no ban.

Really? I was at the Houston Gun Show this past weekend...you are incorrect.

Psst...he made it up, without bothering to look it up. Again.

http://www.luckygunner.com/rifle/223-remington-ammo

It is starting to show up again. But it is double or more the price than it was 6 months ago

Of course it is...that's why one should have a decent reserve for when times get crazy like this. It runs in cycles, always has.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[regulator 0]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN: Now, Senator Reid, Senator Feinstein, had said before that you deserved a vote. But its appearing now it's going to be an amendment, it could ultimately just be a symbolic vote. What's your response to this new --

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): No, no if it's an amendment, that is not a symbolic vote. I did the bill in 1994 on the floor as an amendment, it enacted a law. It went on to the House, it was enacted.

What Senator Reid told me is that I would have an opportunity for a vote. I take him at his word. I told him also that it would be my intention to separate out the prohibition on the future, manufacture, transfer, sales, possession of large ammunition-feeding devices of more than ten bullets. I asked him if this could be part of a package. He said no. And I took away from that meeting the belief that we would have a vote on the full bill, and a vote on ammunition-feeding devices of more than ten bullets.

This is very important to me and I'm not going to lay down and play dead. I think the American people have said in every single public poll that they support this kind of legislation. It's aimed to protect children, to protect schools and malls. It's aimed to dry up the supply of these over time. And it came out on a 10-8 vote of the Judiciary Committee. Not to give me a vote on this would be a major betrayal of trust.

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/19/feinstein_on_reid_dropping_assault_weapons_ban_a_major_betrayal_of_trust.html

[skypuppy 1]

I think the American people have said in every single public poll that they support this kind of legislation.


Yup.

50%+1 vs 50%-1

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[regulator 0]

I havent met anyone from my area that is OK with any of the new gun control legislations being proposed. Although I do live in one of the most gun friendly states in the nation.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

REASON: There ain't no friggin 223 ammo on the shelves from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and from the Canada to the Mexico border. Guns without ammo are useless relics that need no ban.

Really? I was at the Houston Gun Show this past weekend...you are incorrect.

Psst...he made it up, without bothering to look it up. Again.

http://www.luckygunner.com/rifle/223-remington-ammo

It is starting to show up again. But it is double or more the price than it was 6 months ago

Of course it is...that's why one should have a decent reserve for when times get crazy like this. It runs in cycles, always has.

I'm talking about ammo at reasonable prices, not over priced ammo no one wants. I have more rounds than your online example. Most all stores are out, Dicks, Walmart, Cabalas, Outdoor World, etc.

[kallend 2,026]

But stronger background checks work.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725200047.htm

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

But stronger background checks work.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725200047.htm

Since hanging is the most common form of suicide, worldwide, do you think we need background checks before allowing someone to buy rope or cord?
Just think about how many lives could be saved by such a simple process.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Since hanging is the most common form of suicide, worldwide, do you think we need background checks before allowing someone to buy rope or cord?
Just think about how many lives could be saved by such a simple process.

only if the background check is 'stronger'.

"but we haven't defined the check yet"

doesn't matter, make it stronger

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NoCoSkyDiver 0]

Quote

But stronger background checks work.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725200047.htm

As a scientist, you should know that one study that shows a barely statistically significant result does not prove a fact. To quote from the source you provided.

"We think our findings indicate comprehensive background checks may help, but it would be a mistake to think of them as a panacea," Sen explains.

Better if you said background checks may work. It appears your own bias is clouding your scientific judgement.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

But stronger background checks work.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725200047.htm

As a scientist, you should know that one study that shows a barely statistically significant result does not prove a fact. To quote from the source you provided.

"We think our findings indicate comprehensive background checks may help, but it would be a mistake to think of them as a panacea," Sen explains.

Better if you said background checks may work. It appears your own bias is clouding your scientific judgement.

In the 1960s scientists researching road accidents thought mandating improvements to brakes, installation of seatbelts, etc. *might* help reduce accidents. People like YOU decried the idea. However, turns out the scientists were correct. Traffic fatalities per mile down by 80% since 1960.

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But stronger background checks work.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725200047.htm

As a scientist, you should know that one study that shows a barely statistically significant result does not prove a fact. To quote from the source you provided.

"We think our findings indicate comprehensive background checks may help, but it would be a mistake to think of them as a panacea," Sen explains.

Better if you said background checks may work. It appears your own bias is clouding your scientific judgement.

In the 1960s scientists researching road accidents thought mandating improvements to brakes, installation of seatbelts, etc. *might* help reduce accidents. People like YOU decried the idea. However, turns out the scientists were correct. Traffic fatalities per mile down by 80% since 1960.

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

frankly I don't believe people said that seatbelts (or motorcycle helmet laws) wouldn't improve safety - I believe they said it was their freedom to choose whether they wore them or not, despite that it might be less safe for them if they chose not to.

So the problem was never that they didn't think safety would improve, but whether the state had any business taking away the right to choose.

And I still believe the state has no business mandating it's civilians wear them, although I have no problem with them recommending it.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But stronger background checks work.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725200047.htm

As a scientist, you should know that one study that shows a barely statistically significant result does not prove a fact. To quote from the source you provided.

"We think our findings indicate comprehensive background checks may help, but it would be a mistake to think of them as a panacea," Sen explains.

Better if you said background checks may work. It appears your own bias is clouding your scientific judgement.

In the 1960s scientists researching road accidents thought mandating improvements to brakes, installation of seatbelts, etc. *might* help reduce accidents. People like YOU decried the idea. However, turns out the scientists were correct. Traffic fatalities per mile down by 80% since 1960.

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

frankly I don't believe people said that seatbelts (or motorcycle helmet laws) wouldn't improve safety - I believe they said it was their freedom to choose whether they wore them or not, despite that it might be less safe for them if they chose not to.

So the problem was never that they didn't think safety would improve, but whether the state had any business taking away the right to choose.

And I still believe the state has no business mandating it's civilians wear them, although I have no problem with them recommending it.

I have a problem with states w/o helmet or seatbelt laws: it causes everyone else's auto insurance premiums to go up, to offset the increased risk that your insurance company will have to pay-out larger indemnities for worse injuries sustained by un-helmeted motorcyclists and un-belted motorists who get into accidents with their policyholders. And that, unlike, for example, skydiving, is what does make it everyone else's business, and not simply a matter of personal choice and freedoms.

Take away an un-helmeted motorcyclist's ability to sue when he's hit and injured/killed by another driver, and I might change my position - not otherwise.

[NoCoSkyDiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But stronger background checks work.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725200047.htm

As a scientist, you should know that one study that shows a barely statistically significant result does not prove a fact. To quote from the source you provided.

"We think our findings indicate comprehensive background checks may help, but it would be a mistake to think of them as a panacea," Sen explains.

Better if you said background checks may work. It appears your own bias is clouding your scientific judgement.

In the 1960s scientists researching road accidents thought mandating improvements to brakes, installation of seatbelts, etc. *might* help reduce accidents. People like YOU decried the idea. However, turns out the scientists were correct. Traffic fatalities per mile down by 80% since 1960.

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

I think that you are comparing apples to oranges. I was born in the late 60s, but I can not imagine arguing that better brakes would not help prevent accidents.

What you have done is take one study ( having marginal statistical significance ) which happens to fit your bias and made it fact. An objective scientist will just go with the results of the aggregate of the studies take him. The person who wrote the study did not even make the claim stronger background checks work.