Gun Control III

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
701

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
“There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.”

I completely agree. Unfortunately this assumes one will never find themselves on a “battlefield” which is taking quite the chance with the way police/government/military powers have grown in the past 30 years.

But surely those factions wouldn’t come at citizens with assault rifles themselves right? No, I think we know they already do. And why are those groups brandishing assault rifles in the United States again?
[/quote]

Right. And that’s the entire point! lol. One can never know when they will be on a sunny day that suddenly turns into a battlefield because they took a wrong turn, or a pleasant starry concert night that becomes a threat to loved ones because they walked left instead of right, or stayed too long, or had a car battery die and have to wait. And that’s just the family side, that doesn’t take into account the fact that police departments are abusing the rights of the people they are supposed to be protecting.

Also, yay for Kansas Constitutional Carry.[/quote]

ALso, assault rifles are select fire. She’s not talking about actual assult rifles because they are insanely difficult to get, and very expensive.

She’s talking about semi-automatic rifles that look scary and are painted black.
[/quote]

The kind that can only be used for killing as many people as possible? The kind that were designed for a battlefield?

Why do so many of the “good guys” that work for various government departments have them then? And how are we sure they will always be good when we have so much evidence that sometimes they are not?

Is the United States of America a battlefield?

702

[quote]H factor wrote:

Why do so many of the “good guys” that work for various government departments have them then? And how are we sure they will always be good when we have so much evidence that sometimes they are not?

Is the United States of America a battlefield?
[/quote]

The best part is in ban states… LEO don’t have to follow the same rules us plebs do. They can have flash hiders and standard capacity mags… They can have adjustable stocks…

You know, all the evil killy features that are bathed in the blood of dead children.

703

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
“There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.”

I completely agree. Unfortunately this assumes one will never find themselves on a “battlefield” which is taking quite the chance with the way police/government/military powers have grown in the past 30 years.

But surely those factions wouldn’t come at citizens with assault rifles themselves right? No, I think we know they already do. And why are those groups brandishing assault rifles in the United States again?
[/quote]

Right. And that’s the entire point! lol. One can never know when they will be on a sunny day that suddenly turns into a battlefield because they took a wrong turn, or a pleasant starry concert night that becomes a threat to loved ones because they walked left instead of right, or stayed too long, or had a car battery die and have to wait. And that’s just the family side, that doesn’t take into account the fact that police departments are abusing the rights of the people they are supposed to be protecting.

Also, yay for Kansas Constitutional Carry.[/quote]

ALso, assault rifles are select fire. She’s not talking about actual assult rifles because they are insanely difficult to get, and very expensive.

She’s talking about semi-automatic rifles that look scary and are painted black.
[/quote]

For example. She’d ban the bottom rifle, but not the first.

They are, in fact, the same fuckign rifle. Different stocks.
[/quote]

Yup no I agree. I know she didn’t have a damn clue, but then very few if any politically motivated officials do on the topic. I was using the opportunity to make a different point lol.

704

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…a milder version of the blowback Bush got in '08…???”

Are you kidding, Max?

Mufasa[/quote]

Mufasa, if I may be candid - this idea you seem to support that Obama has experienced a uniquely nasty leave of vitriol isn’t credible, in my view (and I am someone who detests Obama Derangement Syndrome). Bush was accused of racist wars in the Middle East and plays were written fantasizing his assassination. Obama has his detractors - even the stupid and insane ones - but some of that is offset by his kid glove treatment by the media.

End hijack. Back to guns. :wink:

705

[quote]H factor wrote:
“There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.”

I completely agree. Unfortunately this assumes one will never find themselves on a “battlefield” which is taking quite the chance with the way police/government/military powers have grown in the past 30 years.

But surely those factions wouldn’t come at citizens with assault rifles themselves right? No, I think we know they already do. And why are those groups brandishing assault rifles in the United States again?
[/quote]

If American citizens find themselves on a battlefield in the United States, they will be considered criminals. That statement doesn’t come from one assuming that Americans will never find themselves on a battlefield; it comes from one knowing the battlefield won’t appear if citizens are disarmed. It comes from one wanting to stack the deck against the citizenry.

706

[quote]H factor wrote:
“There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.”

[/quote]

Guns designed for battlefields:

Matchlock musket
Flintlock musket
Flintlock rifle
Cap and ball rifle
Cap and ball revolver
Breech-loading single-shot rifle
Lever-action repeating rifle
Cartridge revolver
Bolt-action rifle
Pump-action shotgun
Semiautomatic pistol
Semiautomatic rifle
Semiautomatic shotgun

In other words, every gun ever.

707

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

This needs to happen. I’ll buy an M&P Sport for $600 and turn it in to the tune of a $1,400 profit every year… lmao.[/quote]

Tax credits, Beans. Not cash.

Not as attractive a deal in that case, unless your tax bill is huge.

Which, you being an accountant and all, I am guessing is not.

708

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Tax credits, Beans. Not cash.

.[/quote]

Same difference. You just lower your withholdings.

And yes, my bill is as low as it possibly can be. Which isn’t low enough unfortunately.

711

Uber driver, licensed to carry gun, shoots gunman in Logan Square

Authorities say no charges will be filed against an Uber driver who shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend.

712

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Uber driver, licensed to carry gun, shoots gunman in Logan Square

Authorities say no charges will be filed against an Uber driver who shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend.

Said it before and I’ll say it again, less casualties on average in active shooter scenarios when armed civilians intervene than when police do.

713

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Uber driver, licensed to carry gun, shoots gunman in Logan Square

Authorities say no charges will be filed against an Uber driver who shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend.

Said it before and I’ll say it again, less casualties on average in active shooter scenarios when armed civilians intervene than when police do.[/quote]

At least you have a fighting chance if there is a gun returning fire in a situation like this.

714

Such a knee-jerk first line from the Chicago Tribune:

“Authorities say no charges will be filed against an Uber driver who shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend.”

In other words, no charges pressed against man who did nothing wrong.

716

[quote]pushharder wrote:
“Really no difference between GOP and Dems,” huh?

Note the response I got from my senator after contacting him a few hours ago regarding S. 498, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015:

Mr. Push W Harder

Dear Mr. Harder,

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for S. 498, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015. I appreciate hearing your views, and you will be pleased to know that I have cosponsored this bill.

As a fifth generation Montanan and concealed carry permit holder myself, I am a staunch supporter of our Second Amendment rights and will oppose any legislative effort that could infringe on that right. S. 498 would allow licensed concealed gun owners, or those otherwise legally allowed to possess a concealed firearm, to carry, ship, or receive their concealed firearms across state lines and within other states that also allow such firearms. I believe individuals who are licensed or legally allowed to carry a firearm should have the freedom to keep that firearm on their person if they travel to a state that also allows concealed carry. Please know that I will do everything I can to advance this measure through the legislative process.

Again, thanks for contacting me. It is my number one priority in Congress to represent the values and interests of the people of Montana, and your input is very helpful as I do. I invite you to visit my new website, www.daines.senate.gov, for updates about activities in Washington that affect our lives in Montana or to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you again in the future.

Sincerely,

Signature

Steve Daines

United States Senator

SD/js[/quote]

That’s the benefit of having a state population of just around a million (while having a land area the size of several European countries). Your representatives actually take (or at least take greater pains to appear to take) an interest in the concerns of their constituents.

HOWEVER: just for the sake of your above argument, I dare you to take the same email you sent to Steve Daines, and send it to John Tester, the Democratic US Senator for Montana.

Please post his reply and we shall compare them.

718

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
“Really no difference between GOP and Dems,” huh?

Note the response I got from my senator after contacting him a few hours ago regarding S. 498, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015:

Mr. Push W Harder

Dear Mr. Harder,

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for S. 498, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015. I appreciate hearing your views, and you will be pleased to know that I have cosponsored this bill.

As a fifth generation Montanan and concealed carry permit holder myself, I am a staunch supporter of our Second Amendment rights and will oppose any legislative effort that could infringe on that right. S. 498 would allow licensed concealed gun owners, or those otherwise legally allowed to possess a concealed firearm, to carry, ship, or receive their concealed firearms across state lines and within other states that also allow such firearms. I believe individuals who are licensed or legally allowed to carry a firearm should have the freedom to keep that firearm on their person if they travel to a state that also allows concealed carry. Please know that I will do everything I can to advance this measure through the legislative process.

Again, thanks for contacting me. It is my number one priority in Congress to represent the values and interests of the people of Montana, and your input is very helpful as I do. I invite you to visit my new website, www.daines.senate.gov, for updates about activities in Washington that affect our lives in Montana or to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you again in the future.

Sincerely,

Signature

Steve Daines

United States Senator

SD/js[/quote]

That’s the benefit of having a state population of just around a million (while having a land area the size of several European countries). Your representatives actually take (or at least take greater pains to appear to take) an interest in the concerns of their constituents.

HOWEVER: just for the sake of your above argument, I dare you to take the same email you sent to Steve Daines, and send it to John Tester, the Democratic US Senator for Montana.

Please post his reply and we shall compare them.[/quote]

Tester’s a turd.

Our only congressman is, as you probably know, a good friend of dear, departed Doc. In fact, Doc spent some of his last days on Ryan Zinke’s campaign bus roaming the Big Sky. He really grew to love Montana. Got to see the small towns and meet the laid back people that generally inhabit them. He used to tell me what a contrast that was compared to SoCal.

Shit, I just got choked up thinking about him again.
[/quote]

I was just going to ask whether you had met Ryan.

I thought he was a state senator…?