Bobzilla wrote: But the AK is Russian......
ARE YOU ON MY SIDE OR NOT?!
Bobzilla wrote: But the AK is Russian......
ARE YOU ON MY SIDE OR NOT?!
N Sperlo wrote:Bobzilla wrote: But the AK is Russian......ARE YOU ON MY SIDE OR NOT?!
which side is that again? Is this the "For the Children" or the "We Have to do SOMETHING" side?
Strizzo wrote: In reply to aircooled: maybe at one time the NRA was talked into the idea that if both sides compromise, there can be a happy medium found then the gun owners could go on and be happy and the gun control people would also go on to some other cause and be happy. many people say that the NRA sold out its members in 86 when they agreed to compromise....
OK, thanks for the reply, interesting.
I did not realize that the NRA is considered a bit of a "sell out". For the outside world, everyone seems to assume the NRA is a 100% "go gun" organization (if you know what I mean), and represents the vast majority of gun owners.
Bobzilla wrote:N Sperlo wrote:which side is that again? Is this the "For the Children" or the "We Have to do SOMETHING" side?Bobzilla wrote: But the AK is Russian......ARE YOU ON MY SIDE OR NOT?!
I don't know anymore. 
What was it someone said somewhere...... It's not a compromise when only one side makes concessions and the other side gets what they want.
Plain and simply put: The Anti's will never give up until everyone is disarmed. Period. No amount of concessions will ever appease them and they will patiently await the next tragedy to exploit so they can make some more progress toward their goal.
The pro-gun peeps on the other hand just want to be left the berkeley alone. Let us have our guns, let us be. We're not going crazy asking for rocket launchers, missles etc. Just stop taking what is ours.
Bobzilla wrote: What was it someone said somewhere...... It's not a compromise when only one side makes concessions and the other side gets what they want.
oh crap, you mean my wife wasn't really compromising with me all of these years?
tuna55 wrote:Bobzilla wrote: What was it someone said somewhere...... It's not a compromise when only one side makes concessions and the other side gets what they want.oh crap, you mean my wife wasn't really compromising with me all of these years?
you already know that answer don't you? It's never a compromise when it involves the wife. She wins.
aircooled wrote: I did not realize that the NRA is considered a bit of a "sell out".
They've backed many anti-gun laws as a form of compromise
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/12/americas-largest-gun-control-organization-vin-suprynowicz
aircooled wrote: For the outside world, everyone seems to assume the NRA is a 100% "go gun" organization (if you know what I mean), and represents the vast majority of gun owners.
There are only 4.3 million NRA members. There are probably 70-80 million adult gun owners in the USA
Bobzilla wrote:tuna55 wrote:you already know that answer don't you? It's never a compromise when it involves the wife. She wins.Bobzilla wrote: What was it someone said somewhere...... It's not a compromise when only one side makes concessions and the other side gets what they want.oh crap, you mean my wife wasn't really compromising with me all of these years?
OK, penis = lose, I get it.
Just kidding. I knew that long ago. I actually told my four year old that, although a bit more subtly.
aircooled wrote:Strizzo wrote: In reply to aircooled: maybe at one time the NRA was talked into the idea that if both sides compromise, there can be a happy medium found then the gun owners could go on and be happy and the gun control people would also go on to some other cause and be happy. many people say that the NRA sold out its members in 86 when they agreed to compromise....OK, thanks for the reply, interesting. I did not realize that the NRA is considered a bit of a "sell out". For the outside world, everyone seems to assume the NRA is a 100% "go gun" organization (if you know what I mean), and represents the vast majority of gun owners.
and the democrats used to be the conservative party. NRA is definitely 100% "go-gun" as you say now, but 1986 was a long time ago.
aircooled wrote:Strizzo wrote: In reply to aircooled: maybe at one time the NRA was talked into the idea that if both sides compromise, there can be a happy medium found then the gun owners could go on and be happy and the gun control people would also go on to some other cause and be happy. many people say that the NRA sold out its members in 86 when they agreed to compromise....OK, thanks for the reply, interesting. I did not realize that the NRA is considered a bit of a "sell out". For the outside world, everyone seems to assume the NRA is a 100% "go gun" organization (if you know what I mean), and represents the vast majority of gun owners.
You didn't catch my rant back in the first 10 pages then I presume.......
They do not represent me, nor do I support them. They sold out a minority of their members and thats what began all these ideas about "Restricting" select weapons. The ones who weren't satisfied have indeed taken that as a sign they can, so they will naturally try. NFA in '86 should have never happened. Period.
Does the average person need a M60, Dillon minigun, or Glock 18? Probably not, but......if you have ever been around them, they are fun. Expensive to feed, but oh my they are fun. Unbanning their new manufacture for the public probably wouldn't affect crime rates at all.....which is the sad truth.
In reply to tuna55:
Its all pretty much the same arguement. When the NRA made that trade off, I doubt anyone cared about the facts......it was just (jersey accent) "This E36 M3 be scary man...."(/jersey accent) According to the C-Span tapes of that session, it was struck down, but still ended up a law.....
Edit: you ninja edit/deleted........
yamaha wrote: Does the average person need a M60, Dillon minigun, or Glock 18?
yamaha wrote: Does the average person need a M60, Dillon minigun, or Glock 18?
I am taking this counterpoint you wrote to your ideas (which I agree with) to make a good analogy everyone here can agree with. Please note that I dumbed down terminology and language to reflect what the average politician would write, rather than things which would actually be useful in an analogous sense:
Why do you need a car that can go 200 mph? That's ridiculous. You don't need that to drive to work, to drop off your kids. You can easily take a four cylinder Camry instead and the world will be safer. Speed kills (see how I didn't reference a source?) and we shouldn't be allowed to own vehicles which can travel faster than the speed limit. Furthermore, most of those vehicles are wasteful to the environment. We should only be allowed to own vehicles designed to be safe and environmentally friendly. Here is a list of specific vehicles which will be immediately banned, with future revisions of existing vehicles to include speed and acceleration limitations.
Aston Martin (all exc Signet)
Audi (R and RS models)
Bentley (all)
Chevrolet (Corvette, trucks, SUVs)
Chrysler SRT variants
Fiat 500 (Abarth and turbo models only)
Ferrari (all)
Ford (Mustang and Shelby variants, Focus ST)
GMC (*)
Honda/Acura (S2000, SI models)
Hyundai/Kia (Genesis track models)
Lamborghini (all)
Mitsubishi (EVO models)
Nissan (Z cars)
New model years and redesigns shall conform to the law, whereas each vehicle may not have more than one of the characteristics noted in the list below:
Tires greater than 215 section width, or less than 400 treadwear
Engine greater than 3.0 liters displacement or 200 hp
Steering wheel shape other than round
Seats with "bolsters"
Manually shifted transmissions
Engines requiring greater than 87 octane
Any body part with vents/scoops
Brake rotors which are slotted and drilled (slotted or drilled separately are permissible)
Tachometers
Extraneous gauges such as "oil pressure"
Wings
Vehicles must conform to sound pressure limits declining by 3 dB each year until the lower limit of 60 dB is reached
Vehicles must accelerate to 60 mph slower than eight seconds
Vehicles must have a 85 mph top speed
There ya go. Someone write Congress. Or wait, don't. Please.
yamaha wrote: In reply to tuna55: Its all pretty much the same arguement. When the NRA made that trade off, I doubt anyone cared about the facts......it was just (jersey accent) "This E36 M3 be scary man...."(/jersey accent) According to the C-Span tapes of that session, it was struck down, but still ended up a law.....
it posted before I was done, so I deleted it and finished it first. There it is now!
well, here it is, time to hit the phones i guess.
Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 Mass shootings in Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson have demonstrated all too clearly the need to regulate military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. These weapons allow a gunman to fire a large number of rounds quickly and without having to reload. What the bill does . . . The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of: All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel. All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm. All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder. All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page). The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill: Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment; Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and Antique weapons. The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms: The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model. The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by: Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test. The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test. Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds. Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns. So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a workaround to prohibitions on detachable magazines. Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a workaround to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips. Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire. The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by: Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon. This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system. Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill. Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons. Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon Assault weapon bans have been proven to be effective The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was effective at reducing crime and getting these military-style weapons off our streets. Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons. A Justice Department study of the assault weapons ban found that it was responsible for a 6.7% decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal. Source: Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” (March 1997). The same study also found that “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.” The use of assault weapons in crime declined by more than two-thirds by about nine years after 1994 Assault Weapons Ban took effect. Source: Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003” (June 2004), University of Pennsylvania, Report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. The percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia that had high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired. Source: David S. Fallis and James V. Grimaldi, “In Virginia, high-yield clip seizures rise,” Washington Post, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/22/AR2011012204046.html When Maryland imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55% drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department. Source: Douglas S. Weil & Rebecca C. Knox, Letter to the Editor, The Maryland Ban on the Sale of Assault Pistols and High-Capacity Magazines: Estimating the Impact in Baltimore, 87 Am. J. of Public Health 2, Feb. 1997. 37% of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the 1994 federal ban expired. Source: Police Executive Research Forum, Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact (May 2010). List of firearms prohibited by name Rifles: All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine. Pistols: All AK–47 types, including the following: Centurion 39 AK pistol, Draco AK–47 pistol, HCR AK–47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK–47 pistol, Yugo Krebs Krink pistol; All AR–15 types, including the following: American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP–9 and MP–45; Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol; Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9; Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol; The following MAC types: MAC–10, MAC–11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11, Velocity Arms VMAC; Sig Sauer P556 pistol; Sites Spectre; All Thompson types, including the following: Thompson TA510D, Thompson TA5; All UZI types, including: Micro-UZI. Shotguns: Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following:IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12. Belt-fed semiautomatic firearms: All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms including TNW M2HB.
from http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/a-gun-ban-bill-is-born-feinsteins-awb-2013-revealed/#more-194171
In reply to tuna55:
don't give them any more ideas!
I love how she throws out extraneous numbers with no foundation, facts or sources. My god she is an evil bitch.
I am soooo sick of the stupid people running (ruining) this country.
In reply to Bobzilla:
it is interesting how they take the study on the effectiveness of the 94 AWB, and pluck one statement from it out of context, when in fact that they were saying that there is no conclusive data to show that the ban did anything at all to crime rates.
Kevin Tully:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/meet-kevin-tully-vet-who-passionately-defended-2nd-amendment-at-anti-gun-event/
I may just go buy some of his SWAG because I like what he says.
I like his cars, too.....
tuna55 wrote:yamaha wrote: Does the average person need a M60, Dillon minigun, or Glock 18?yamaha wrote: Does the average person need a M60, Dillon minigun, or Glock 18?I am taking this counterpoint you wrote to your ideas (which I agree with) to make a good analogy everyone here can agree with. Please note that I dumbed down terminology and language to reflect what the average politician would write, rather than things which would actually be useful in an analogous sense: Why do you need a car that can go 200 mph? That's ridiculous. You don't need that to drive to work, to drop off your kids. You can easily take a four cylinder Camry instead and the world will be safer. Speed kills (see how I didn't reference a source?) and we shouldn't be allowed to own vehicles which can travel faster than the speed limit. Furthermore, most of those vehicles are wasteful to the environment. We should only be allowed to own vehicles designed to be safe and environmentally friendly. Here is a list of specific vehicles which will be immediately banned, with future revisions of existing vehicles to include speed and acceleration limitations. Aston Martin (all exc Signet).... more dangerous/deadly cars...
I had the exact same discussion with a coworker that was trying to debate gun control with me. Not because he is actually for gun control necessarily but he's just got the need to debate people. I like to debate too. When the "you don't need to have an assault rifle" stuff came out I immediately said "Well no one needs a Ferrari and you can buy those". He got stopped dead in his tracks when he realized he was jumping into a debate he was ill prepared for and started with jokes instead.
I also brought up alcohol deaths and DUI deaths and said maybe we should ban alcohol.
I am floored. Really actually excited. I E-mailed this on January 14th, to all of the SC state representatives, under the heading 'gun control'.
This should actually be worded "federal government control". With the tides in DC changing so rapidly that it seems many broad-brush changes are going to get rushed along without many getting any sort of chance to review, or indeed even vote on any legislation. Even if time was taken to review and vote on each measure proposed by overzealous DC lawmakers, we can fully expect the US Constitution to be trampled upon, and our rights as citizens to be cut back. Some states have considered, and at least some have advanced legislation to prohibit federal gun control measures from affecting their citizens. Wyoming HB104 (http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Introduced/HB0104.pdf) is currently under consideration. Montana has already adopted legislation which was very similar in 2009. Can we count on our state representatives to follow suit and pass something along these lines, and fast? Thanks for your time
I got several (maybe 10) E-mails back, and within a few hours, a phone call back from my state senator, Tom Corbin. We spoke on the phone for ten minutes. All E-mails and phone calls were encouraging. Tom told me that although one of his colleagues had proposed something (S85) which did something, but not enough. If you don't want to read it, essentially it provides for South Carolina to buy and sell firearms and related within the state amongst people and companies without federal government regulations. I wanted more, and so did he. TI wrote another letter today to those who responded:
I'd like to update my request. In the few days since I have contacted you, the list of state's passing legislation to eliminate the federal government's control of firearms has grown. I don't think our S85 or S224 go far enough. I truly hope that SC can pass a law very similar to any of these. See the list below:
Wyoming HB104
Missouri HB170
Texas HB553
Tennessee HB0042
North Dakota HB1183
New Mexico HB114
Arizona HB2291 and SB1112
Alaska HB69
Florida 2ND Amendment Preservation Act
Nebraska LB451
Oklahoma SB548
Virginia HB2340
Pennsylvania HB357
So I went back and forth with senator Lee Bright (the guy behind S85) a bit today explaining why I felt he needed to go farther with S85. This evening, I got a response from Tom Corbin:
Brian please see my senate bill # 247. I would love your input.
Tom Corbin SC Senate District 5
So I look at 247. It was submitted January 16th. I won't copy it all here, but the crux is in the following paragraphs:
(A) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 25-1-60, an able-bodied citizen of this State who is over seventeen years of age and can legally purchase a firearm is deemed a member of the South Carolina Unorganized Militia, unless he is already a member of the National Guard or the organized militia not in National Guard service.
(C) The powers and duties of the South Carolina Unorganized Militia include:
(2) A militia member, at his own expense, shall have the right to possess and keep all arms that could be legally acquired or possessed by a South Carolina citizen as of December 31, 2012. This includes shouldered rifles and shotguns, handguns, clips, magazines, and all components.
(3) The unorganized militia may not fall under any law or regulation or jurisdiction of any person or entity outside of South Carolina.
So my state senator took my letter, called me about it, then proposed a law that did exactly what I recommended, but in a more clever way that is less likely to be challenged than the other states did. He's got me excited. I think I may have just seen the government work. Properly. Amazing.
That's wonderful.
There are some good people in government positions, its just you rarely hear them or about them. They are the ones whispering across the stadium during the Superbowl.
Glad to hear it tuna, sounds like you have found some of the good people down there.
South Carolina Unorganized Militia?
Considering the acronym they may want to rethink the name.
In reply to btabacchi:
You'll need to log in to post.
