OT: Gun Control in Virginia

[Michael Terrell]

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 11:28:55 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 10:44:15 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

I think you may have totally missed my point about all guns being LETHAL.
Which of course, is their entire reason to exist.
That is their purpose. It matters not how it is done, what you call it, or how it looks and feels.

Whether someone is killed with a .22 or 380 small caliber compact handgun, or a 338 Lapua Magnum precision, long-distance competition rifle, makes no difference. That person is still DEAD.

Anti-gunners want to ban entire "classes" of firearms based on features OTHER than the one that should really matter: How safe is the gun in the right hands, and does it do the job intended? Beyond that - you need to look at the person behind the gun, not the scary black plastic gun components or features.

You do know that the deadliest mass school shooting in America was committed with only HANDGUNS, right. Not "assault rifles".

And you know what, I don't even believe the entire field of "gun violence" is a big deal. It's actually been on the decline for decades, even as total gun ownership (as % of population), and total firearms in private ownership (raw #'s) has skyrocketed. And the population has grown significantly as well.
(That's another way to say if gun ownership were the problem, you'd KNOW IT! - There would be zero doubt.)

The TRUTH is the number of deaths appropriately attributed to gun violence is declining, and far less than a lot of other aspects in daily life: medical malpractice, texting and driving, assault other than with firearms (including someone's bare fists, BTW!).

Subtract suicides, police action, and gang-on-gang violence, and the numbers are even less demanding of a solution. Any solution. It's just not a big deal.

Of course, school & church shootings grab the headlines, and a public outcry ensues (Note: Both are "gun free zones" in many jurisdictions.) And everybody's got a solution - but none of them are proven to work (in fact, most are proven to NOT work), because they don't focus on the actual problem - the crazed, murdering individual. (who I guarantee you could care less about gun-free zone laws, and what color plastic the gun is made from.)

It truly is like outlawing spoons to prevent diabetes.
Maybe if we just outlaw the scary black plastic spoons?

Personally, I agree tweaks to the system could benefit all, but it's never going to happen when basic gun ownership in under attack. Give an inch, take a mile, sort of thing. For example, the current system relies upon felony record prohibition - practically guaranteeing that the "first time felon" will never be denied a weapon. And some felonies are not violent (i.e., white collar crime), and I'm not sure those should rise to the level of forever forfeiting one's 2A rights.

No. None of that matters.
For the typical anti-gunner, it's encroach, encroach, encroach, until the 2nd Amendment is meaningless, or so unworkable under a bewildering patchwork of laws as to be impossible to enjoy.

You can do what you want, and believe what you want.

But if you can imagine yourself in a really ugly life-and-death situation, say a violent felony assault against your person, would you rather have the means to defend yourself (and those you love), or do you think you could negotiate a "time-out" with your attacker to allow enough time to call "911", and then wait for the police to arrive? (who may or may not help)

In reality, the tens of millions of citizens who carry a firearm daily will never find themselves in situations where deadly force against an attacker will be needed. But you never know. Watch the nightly news - bad thing happen even in the best of neighborhoods. (BTW: Something to consider - when you're carrying, you actually go out of your way to avoid confrontation.. Your attitude changes. Even if you're in the right to pull a weapon in self-defense, that's not going to stop the subsequent, expensive legal process, or civil lawsuits. But it's something that often gets overlooked until it hits home. Responsible gun owners don't go looking for trouble.)

The problem is sick individuals.
No amount of regulation on law-abiding citizens is ever going to fix that..

And as far as Virginia - we'll see. I wouldn't read too much into it.
It could just as easily be explained by conservatives (Republicans) kicking themselves not getting out the vote, especially in a midterm election - happens all the time. We might see a backlash, 180 turnaround next election, or people flocking to the gun stores for their first time purchases.

Rick would freak out if free charging stations were outlawed, and a lengthy process to obtain a special license to own an EV were put into place. Some weapons cost a small fortune just for the right to own, and you pay that tax every year even if the weapon can't be fired. Like too many liberals, it's OK to demand that others give up their rights, since they don't exercise them. My definition of an assault weapon is one that can empty the entire magazine with one pull of the trigger. That results in 'Spray and Pray' that you actually hit anything.

The early M16 that I was issued in the US Army had three modes. Single shot, three rounds or full auto. The third option was eliminated because it just wasted ammunition, and the enemy could pick you off while you changed the 20 round magazine.

The machine gun served a different purpose. It was for battle on a large open space. Night fire had tracer rounds to let you see where the bullets were going. As the barrel heated up, the path changed. Too many fools believe old war movies of some moron holding a machine gun and running with it while firing. They quickly get too hot to hold, and continuous fire destroys the barrel. Our biggest problem is that the ACLU went to the courts to have the insane asylums shut down. All that did was put the nutcases out into the streets and make it harder to get them the help that they needed. No normal human would pick up any weapon to go on a killing spree.

It is amazing that supposedly grown men are terrified of a little piece of inert metal.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:18:08 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:01:47 PM UTC-5, Jose Curvo wrote:
On 01/11/2020 12:44 AM, Rick C wrote:
I was reading about the gun control legislation that is promised by
the newly elected Democratic majority in Virginia. It seems this is
angering a number of voters even if not enough to have controlled the
election. There have been threats of violence and armed resistance
to any new gun laws passed.

That is so illogical,

They're loons! People having little interest in owning guns are the only
ones who should be trusted with owning them.

A good friend of mine used to have a number of guns, until he moved to a retirement community where they don't allow them.

That's likely unconstitutional, unless it's an actual retirement home,
assisted living or such. But if it's just a retirement community where
you buy and own your own home, it is unconstitutional.





Now he has a few non-guns and a lot of other military collectibles. He is also a life member of the NRA. He can't abide by the NRA's position on bump stocks and silencers though.

The NRA did not oppose banning bump stocks.




He is at a quandary as to the restrictions on magazine sizes. He laments that it won't be legal to own a collectable rifle and the clip that was used with it, like a WWI 1903 Springfield Rifle with a 5 round clip.

I feel his pain, but I won't take his stand against those who wish to protect our population against the threat of those who should not have weapons of mass shootings. There may be a way to compromise, but it is inevitable that we will have more restrictions on owning guns than we have today.

It's not much more difficult to kill people with 6 ten round mags or one
60 round. There are a whole lot of things that would have some effect,
but so far, no one is talking about those. Mostly it's tilting at windmills.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 10:24:35 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 9:08:57 PM UTC-5, Jose Curvo wrote:
On 01/11/2020 01:18 PM, Rick C wrote:

bump stocks and silencers... magazine sizes... weapons of mass
shootings. How important can it be to have such dangerous weapons
today anyway?

Those functional qualities, along with badass military styling that
gets wannabe superheros pumped up, feed a fantasy.

The Assault Rifle "look" alone should send up a red flag. Maybe nobody
can define what makes a rifle an assault rifle well enough to put
controls on them, but the appearance should be enough to tell anyone
that there's something wrong there.

I remember an article from 40 years ago about typical names
that the Japanese gave their domestic market cars - like Honeybee,
Fairlady - and Hornets and Stingrays marketed in America.
Everything has to be killer!

The US government passed an assault rifle law in the 90s. It was only temporary and after its 10 years had expired it was not renewed. The point is an assault rifle can be defined. The only thing lacking is the will to regulate it.

It was defined and the definition made no sense. You could take the same
gun and absent a bayonet mount, it was not an assault rifle.

I would like to know more about how they regulate guns in other countries..

Well, they start with not having a Constitution with the right to own
guns in it.



I can't believe there isn't a way to prevent the wrong people from having guns and allowing responsible people to use them.

Bingo. And there is the one logical thing we need and should do.
Many states today have laws that use a reasonable permit process to try
to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.
For example, in NJ, for each pistol you want to purchase, you have to
fill out a one page application, take it to the local police and then
they do an actual field background check. The application asks for
where you've worked, for two references, etc. The police then pull up
any and all arrest records across the US, any police interaction they
have had with you, they check with your employer, etc. The application
also gives them access to any medical records is they want to look at
those. Then, it's up to the chief of police to issue the permit.
It can be denied if you're an alcoholic, drug user, for a criminal
record or if the COP believes it's not in the interest of public health
and safety. If we had that kind of law for all gun purchases, uniform,
across the country, it would have blocked many of the recent mass shooters
from just walking into Dicks Sporting goods and buying whatever they
wanted. Cruz, the Parkland FL shooter, for example, did exactly that.
The police had been to the house where he lives with his mother 21 times
for trouble. The local PD had brought a state mental health person
there at least once. The local PD knew he was being treated for mental
problems. He had been expelled from HS for trouble there. Yet, because
FL has no permit process, he just walked into Dicks and bought whatever
he pleased.

It's certainly possible that some of these shooters would still get a gun
illegally, eg buy it on the street, steal it, etc. But they also might
not. I know where gun stores are, I have no idea who to approach to buy
a gun illegally. Or they could try, or steal one and get caught doing it.
Or maybe they can only steal a rusty 6 shooter, instead of a semi-auto
rifle, etc. Such a uniform law would also help stop the flow of illegal
guns into the hands of gangs, drug dealers and criminals. Some of those
are coming from straw purchasers. Cousin Tawana walks into Dicks in FL
buys six guns for the gangbanger in Chicago. I don't think she'd do that
if she had to apply for a permit to buy six guns at the local PD.






I think no small part of the problem here is that people want to have no new laws because they fear it is a noose tightening around their proverbial gun owning necks. That may well happen some day that all guns are outlawed.. But not providing for responsible gun ownership will just make that event even more likely.

I agree there too. One big complaint is that the existing gun laws are
not being enforced, which is true. Last time I checked, something like
80,000 people had failed the fed instant background check. There are
pretty much only two ways to fail. Either you have a felony conviction
or you've be adjudicated a nut by a court. We can assume the vast
majority are the former. Yet only something like 50 of those people were
prosecuted! That's right, tens of thousands of felons trying to buy
guns, which is a crime, yet hardly any are prosecuted. And if you went
after them, when you busted them, I'd bet you'd find plenty of them with
stolen guns, drugs, etc so you could get criminals off the street and into
jail.

If we get the problem under control it is less likely that even more restrictive controls will be enacted.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[mpm]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 12:06:28 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 11:28:55 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

I think you may have totally missed my point about all guns being LETHAL.

Again, your arguments are flat because they literally ignore my point. My >point is there is no reason to allow people to have guns other than "Fuck off, >I like guns!". All the self protection crap is just that, crap.

OK - I'll engage with you just this once.... Let's see how far we get.

And your point is: "Fuck off, I don't want YOU to have that gun?"
Why would you even care?

You do realize that More Guns = Less Crime, right?
That concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding that the police?
(So why take their guns, or register, or etc…?)

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/31489-more-guns-less-crime-concealed-carry-permit-holders-more-law-abiding-than-police

From the article: “In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at one-sixth of the rate at which police officers are convicted.”

There are as many or more instances of a gun preventing, ending, or de-escalating violence. It’s rarely reported because it does not fit the media’s anti-gun agenda.

Here are some examples of guns saving lives:
https://bearingarms.com/category/guns-saving-lives/

The US is actually in 11th place when it comes to the Annual Death Rate from Mass Public Shootings (2009-2015). Surprised?
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the-world-in-mass-shootings/

And finally, here’s a whopper-full of evidence:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-faqs-what-you-should-know-about-mass-shootings/
1) 277 active shooter incidents (2000-2018). 64 meet the FBI definition of “mass shooting”.
2) Handguns (not the “AR-15) used far more than any other weapon. Nearly by half; and nearly in all cases when including mass shootings involving multiple weapons. The handgun is the preferred weapon, by far. (So why ban AR-15’s, and not handguns?)
3) The number of mass shootings has not dramatically increased since at least as far back as the 1980’s.
4) According to the Rand Corporation’s extensive study on gun control policies, NONE of them show any change in the prevalence of mass shootings. This means the following popular gun control measures are actually meaningless:

The science: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html

a. Background checks
b. Ban on sales of assault weapons and high capacity magazines
c. Child-access prevention laws
d. Concealed carry laws
e. Licensing and permitting requirements
f. Minimum age requirements, and
g. Mandatory waiting periods.

Note that the RAND research has already studied your idea of banning AR-15's (and high capacity magazines) and concluded it has no meaning effect on gun violence.

You construct many arguments against things I never said. So clearly this is an argument you are having in your own head.

I've remedied that above, and I am now directly rebutting your arguments.

The bottom line is owning a gun makes you less safe, not more safe.

That is demonstrably not true. (See above.)

>I don't imagine myself being in a life or death situation from a violent >attacker and needing a gun to save me, because the likelihood of that >happening is minuscule.

Agreed. Same feeling here. The chances seem miniscule, but are clearly not zero. And BTW, technically, you just did imagine it. But you gave it no weight.

>We have a larger chance of dying in an automobile.

Again agreed, but we don't ban people from driving (which is a privilege, not a Constitutionally guaranteed right!) We don't even effectively enforce the driving laws that are already on the books. (So why make more? Maybe the problem lies elsewhere?)

Statistically, you are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when being treated at the hospital! (About 90,000 die each year, and growing, from preventable medical errors.) I may provide the numbers in my next post. An eye-opener for many who just regurgitate the media's and anti-gunner talking points.

>And yet many people give that short shrift in their life. But the idea of not >having a gun if it were ever needed terrifies them.

IDK. Hasn't been my experience.
I did not purchase my first handgun out of any feelings of terror. Rather, my job at the time often put me in some pretty bad neighborhoods and I affirmatively decided that it was better to be prepared than to rely on the unreliable actions of others, should I ever be a position to require their immediate assistance.

> As to the election, again you ignore the facts. Virginia has had a >Republican government for 26 years! The Democrats made a campaign issue of >gun control and won. What could be more clear than that??? How about a >referendum?

Google the word "pendulum".

I actually agree with you that the 2nd Amendment has become a disfavored right.
But speaking of referenda, how about a Constitution?
See the dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, a case concerning a local ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. In it, Justice Thomas correctly notes that (at the time) "roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons."

You may not like it. (And that's OK - I totally respect your right to have and express an opinion). But change the Constitution. Good luck with that, BTW.

What I was really writing about is how some people are literally crazy enough >about gun control to threaten violence or swear they will obstruct or ignore >the laws if passed.

Sounds a lot like the run-up to the Revolutionary War to me.

> That's anarchy.

One man's anarchy is another man's civil disobedience.
Google "Three Precenters".

>You said the problem is "sick individuals". I agree. And those sick >individuals will be locked up if they don't obey the law.

Doesn't appear to be the case. Witness: Nicholas Cruz (gunman at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School), and he's just the poster boy for my reply here. The list goes on and on. Sick individuals are NOT "locked-up" in this country. In the case of Cruz, literally everything that could be done to keep him in society, was done. Read the book: Why Meadow Died, by Andrew Pollack. He lost his daughter in that shooting - and EVEN HE doesn't blame AR-15's!!! How many more Cruz's are out there?

This Cruz guy worked the counter at the Dollar Tree store (less than a mile from where I work).

Wake up. (?)

Or not. It is your choice.
And it's a free country. Make whatever choice is right for you.
But don't choose for others, unless there truly is some impressive public benefit to be had by infringing on the rights of others. (and in this case, there isn't).

 

[mpm]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 7:33:36 AM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:

The machine gun served a different purpose. It was for battle on a large open space. Night fire had tracer rounds to let you see where the bullets were going. As the barrel heated up, the path changed. Too many fools believe old war movies of some moron holding a machine gun and running with it while firing. They quickly get too hot to hold, and continuous fire destroys the barrel. Our biggest problem is that the ACLU went to the courts to have the insane asylums shut down. All that did was put the nutcases out into the streets and make it harder to get them the help that they needed. No normal human would pick up any weapon to go on a killing spree.

It is amazing that supposedly grown men are terrified of a little piece of inert metal.

You know Mike, I actually have a box of 25 9mm tracer rounds in the safe.
I have no real need or use for them (and no place to legally shoot them), but they were only $10 at the gun show.

And BTW, I don't personally believe the arguments surrounding "full auto" vs. "semi-auto" achieve much with the anti-gunner crowd. To them, that distinction is hardly even worth a mention. Much better to argue the merits of gun ownership, rather than the features of any particular weapon. My opinion.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 11:28:55 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 10:44:15 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

I think you may have totally missed my point about all guns being LETHAL.

Yet we don't allow people to buy fully automatic guns or artillery cannons.
The question is where the line gets drawn.

Which of course, is their entire reason to exist.
That is their purpose. It matters not how it is done, what you call it, or how it looks and feels.

Obviously law makers disagree, at least since the 30s.

Whether someone is killed with a .22 or 380 small caliber compact handgun, or a 338 Lapua Magnum precision, long-distance competition rifle, makes no difference. That person is still DEAD.

How many people do you think the Las Vegas shooter would have killed with
a compact handgun, compared to semi-auto rifles with bump stocks?

Anti-gunners want to ban entire "classes" of firearms based on features OTHER than the one that should really matter: How safe is the gun in the right hands, and does it do the job intended? Beyond that - you need to look at the person behind the gun, not the scary black plastic gun components or features.

I agree we need to look at the person behind the gun. Some states have
laws that do that, where you need a permit, issued by the local police
chief AFTER an actual, real background check. That includes pulling up
all police files on you, checking with your employers, references, maybe
school if you're a recent graduate. Then the permit can be denied if you
have a criminal history, are an alcoholic, drug user, etc. The NRA and
gun proponents object to all of that.

Speaking of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people, what about
the private sale loophole? You can buy a gun via private sale, at a swap
meet, with not even the federal basic background check. NRA is opposed
to closing that too.

You do know that the deadliest mass school shooting in America was committed with only HANDGUNS, right. Not "assault rifles".

As if one shooting has any relevance. How about the deadliest mass shooting
period? Las Vagas?

And you know what, I don't even believe the entire field of "gun violence" is a big deal.

No surprise there. But most of the country is horrified at the escalation
in mass shootings that we are witnessing.




It's actually been on the decline for decades, even as total gun ownership (as % of population), and total firearms in private ownership (raw #'s) has skyrocketed. And the population has grown significantly as well.
> (That's another way to say if gun ownership were the problem, you'd KNOW IT! - There would be zero doubt.)

It may be on a slight decline, but the US has a horrific rate of gun
homicides compared to any other civilized country. It's an order of
magnitude higher or worse. The US rate is 12 per 100K, in Europe it's
about 0.2

The TRUTH is the number of deaths appropriately attributed to gun violence is declining, and far less than a lot of other aspects in daily life: medical malpractice, texting and driving, assault other than with firearms (including someone's bare fists, BTW!).

The truth is 40K people died, 15K of those were murders, the rest suicide
or accidental. That's horrific.

Subtract suicides, police action, and gang-on-gang violence, and the numbers are even less demanding of a solution. Any solution. It's just not a big deal.

Only if you don't value human life. I'd like to see you go tell that to
the families of all the victims.

Of course, school & church shootings grab the headlines,

Gee, I wonder why? Actually all mass shootings where you have a large
number grab the headlines. Las Vegas wasn't a church.



and a public outcry ensues

As it should. A similar outcry came after people got fed up with watching
people die and be maimed by drunk drivers. New laws were passed, enforcement
was tightened and deaths have declined significantly. We need to do the
same with guns.


(Note: Both are "gun free zones" in many jurisdictions.) And everybody's got a solution - but none of them are proven to work (in fact, most are proven to NOT work), because they don't focus on the actual problem - the crazed, murdering individual. (who I guarantee you could care less about gun-free zone laws, and what color plastic the gun is made from.)

It truly is like outlawing spoons to prevent diabetes.
Maybe if we just outlaw the scary black plastic spoons?

Personally, I agree tweaks to the system could benefit all, but it's never going to happen when basic gun ownership in under attack. Give an inch, take a mile, sort of thing. For example, the current system relies upon felony record prohibition - practically guaranteeing that the "first time felon" will never be denied a weapon. And some felonies are not violent (i.e., white collar crime), and I'm not sure those should rise to the level of forever forfeiting one's 2A rights.

No. None of that matters.
For the typical anti-gunner, it's encroach, encroach, encroach, until the 2nd Amendment is meaningless, or so unworkable under a bewildering patchwork of laws as to be impossible to enjoy.

You can do what you want, and believe what you want.

But if you can imagine yourself in a really ugly life-and-death situation, say a violent felony assault against your person, would you rather have the means to defend yourself (and those you love), or do you think you could negotiate a "time-out" with your attacker to allow enough time to call "911", and then wait for the police to arrive? (who may or may not help)

In reality, the tens of millions of citizens who carry a firearm daily will never find themselves in situations where deadly force against an attacker will be needed. But you never know. Watch the nightly news - bad thing happen even in the best of neighborhoods. (BTW: Something to consider - when you're carrying, you actually go out of your way to avoid confrontation.. Your attitude changes. Even if you're in the right to pull a weapon in self-defense, that's not going to stop the subsequent, expensive legal process, or civil lawsuits. But it's something that often gets overlooked until it hits home. Responsible gun owners don't go looking for trouble.)

The problem is sick individuals.
No amount of regulation on law-abiding citizens is ever going to fix that..

But a uniform permit process across the whole US could prevent someone like
Cruz, the Parkland FL shooter from walking into Dicks and buying all the
guns he wanted. Any reasonable permit process would have blocked him.
We should start there.

And as far as Virginia - we'll see. I wouldn't read too much into it.
It could just as easily be explained by conservatives (Republicans) kicking themselves not getting out the vote, especially in a midterm election - happens all the time. We might see a backlash, 180 turnaround next election, or people flocking to the gun stores for their first time purchases.

We'll see. But I think Rick is right, the gun folks would be smart to
agree and drive some reasonable measures, like a uniform permit process,
instead of waiting for whatever the libs want to do.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 12:06:28 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 11:28:55 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

I think you may have totally missed my point about all guns being LETHAL.

Again, your arguments are flat because they literally ignore my point. My point is there is no reason to allow people to have guns other than "Fuck off, I like guns!". All the self protection crap is just that, crap.

You talk about him being unreasonable, then you proceed to say that self
protection is just crap? There are countless stories of people saving
their lives, saving the lives of others, with a gun. Many times the gun
isn't even fired, just producing it sends the bad guy fleeing.

You construct many arguments against things I never said. So clearly this is an argument you are having in your own head.

The bottom line is owning a gun makes you less safe, not more safe. I don't imagine myself being in a life or death situation from a violent attacker and needing a gun to save me, because the likelihood of that happening is minuscule. We have a larger chance of dying in an automobile. And yet many people give that short shrift in their life. But the idea of not having a gun if it were ever needed terrifies them.

What just happened in that church in TX? The good guys with guns prevented
a massacre. Do you get to speak for all people? A poor old lady, living
in a bad neighborhood?

As to the election, again you ignore the facts. Virginia has had a Republican government for 26 years! The Democrats made a campaign issue of gun control and won. What could be more clear than that??? How about a referendum?

What I was really writing about is how some people are literally crazy enough about gun control to threaten violence or swear they will obstruct or ignore the laws if passed.

That's anarchy. You said the problem is "sick individuals". I agree. And those sick individuals will be locked up if they don't obey the law.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Should all the Antifa violent assholes be locked up too? Unlike the
theoretical violence that you claim might happen in VA, that has
already happened.

 

[Jose Curvo]

On 01/12/2020 12:20 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Jose Curvo <jcurvo@mymail.com> wrote in
news:qveg98$1ipn$1@gioia.aioe.org:

On 01/11/2020 06:11 PM, mpm wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:18:08 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
How important can it be to have such dangerous weapons today
anyway?

I totally disagree with you.

But I just wanted to mention that ALL guns are dangerous.

blink> I got it! Embedded Linux and AI for the next generation
gun. Cloud connected.

Only fires if the targeted person 'deserves' it.

Uses the same database they use for deciding if you can have a gun
or not.

Here's a starting point.

<https://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/Amoskeag/19/592919/H1193-L100633032.jpg>

Keep in mind, it will have two barrels and let AI make the decision
which one to shoot.

 

[Jose Curvo]

On 01/12/2020 02:44 AM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
> You think the second amendment is negotiable.

More than ever. The fake president has demonstrated that the entire
Constitution is negotiable.

Come for my guns and you will get them - lead first and I can kill
27 before reloading.

Here's a question that will shut you gun grabbing motherfuckers up
until you get your next influx of stupidity.

Guns kill people right ?

No, guns don't kill people, people kill people! We know that.
All the gun control talk is about people control really. Do you
disapprove of denying lunatics access to guns? Afraid you might somehow
be misidentified as a loon?

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 12/01/20 15:42, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 12:06:28 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 11:28:55 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

I think you may have totally missed my point about all guns being LETHAL.

Again, your arguments are flat because they literally ignore my point. My point is there is no reason to allow people to have guns other than "Fuck off, I like guns!". All the self protection crap is just that, crap.

You talk about him being unreasonable, then you proceed to say that self
protection is just crap? There are countless stories of people saving
their lives, saving the lives of others, with a gun. Many times the gun
isn't even fired, just producing it sends the bad guy fleeing.

Ah yes, the "many people have been saved by not wearing
a seatbelt" argument.

You construct many arguments against things I never said. So clearly this is an argument you are having in your own head.

The bottom line is owning a gun makes you less safe, not more safe. I don't imagine myself being in a life or death situation from a violent attacker and needing a gun to save me, because the likelihood of that happening is minuscule. We have a larger chance of dying in an automobile. And yet many people give that short shrift in their life. But the idea of not having a gun if it were ever needed terrifies them.

What just happened in that church in TX? The good guys with guns prevented
a massacre. Do you get to speak for all people? A poor old lady, living
in a bad neighborhood?

If guns make you safer, why do keep having so many
massacres with guns?

Obviously the school-related massacres make the headlines,
but the common smaller massacre still occur.

 

Jose Curvo <jcurvo@mymail.com> wrote in
news:qvfj5e$fch$1@gioia.aioe.org:

On 01/12/2020 12:20 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
wrote:
Jose Curvo <jcurvo@mymail.com> wrote in
news:qveg98$1ipn$1@gioia.aioe.org:

On 01/11/2020 06:11 PM, mpm wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:18:08 PM UTC-5, Rick C
wrote:
How important can it be to have such dangerous weapons today
anyway?

I totally disagree with you.

But I just wanted to mention that ALL guns are dangerous.

blink> I got it! Embedded Linux and AI for the next generation
gun. Cloud connected.

Only fires if the targeted person 'deserves' it.

Uses the same database they use for deciding if you can have a
gun
or not.

Here's a starting point.

https://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/Amoskeag/19/592919/H1193-
L100633032.jpg

Keep in mind, it will have two barrels and let AI make the
decision which one to shoot.

I like the barbed and poisoned grip in "Law Abiding Citizen".

Hey... I know!

Leave curare' laden 'fake' pistols lying around the house at
night... Pick it up and pull the trigger and it puts you to sleep...
likely forever.

 

Jose Curvo <jcurvo@mymail.com> wrote in news:qvfknq$mqj$1
@gioia.aioe.org:

On 01/12/2020 02:44 AM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
You think the second amendment is negotiable.

More than ever. The fake president has demonstrated that the entire
Constitution is negotiable.

Well... at least on a temporal basis.

I do not think he will be aquitted. I think new crimes will come
to light as well.

I also feel that since the crime was interference with the upcoming
election, he has disqualified himself from participation whther he
get aquitted or not.

I think the dishonorable bastard should be down at GITMO... on
bread and water no less, with ALL of his assets confiscated.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:04:19 AM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 12:06:28 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 11:28:55 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

I think you may have totally missed my point about all guns being LETHAL.

Again, your arguments are flat because they literally ignore my point. My >point is there is no reason to allow people to have guns other than "Fuck off, >I like guns!". All the self protection crap is just that, crap.

OK - I'll engage with you just this once.... Let's see how far we get.

And your point is: "Fuck off, I don't want YOU to have that gun?"
Why would you even care?

You do realize that More Guns = Less Crime, right?

ROFL

Statistics show the opposite, that gun deaths are correlated with the
number of guns in a country. It also tracks by state here in the US.

That concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding that the police?
(So why take their guns, or register, or etc…?)

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/31489-more-guns-less-crime-concealed-carry-permit-holders-more-law-abiding-than-police

From the article: “In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at one-sixth of the rate at which police officers are convicted.”

There are as many or more instances of a gun preventing, ending, or de-escalating violence. It’s rarely reported because it does not fit the media’s anti-gun agenda.

Here are some examples of guns saving lives:
https://bearingarms.com/category/guns-saving-lives/

The US is actually in 11th place when it comes to the Annual Death Rate from Mass Public Shootings (2009-2015). Surprised?
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the-world-in-mass-shootings/

And finally, here’s a whopper-full of evidence:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-faqs-what-you-should-know-about-mass-shootings/
1) 277 active shooter incidents (2000-2018). 64 meet the FBI definition of “mass shooting”.
2) Handguns (not the “AR-15) used far more than any other weapon. Nearly by half; and nearly in all cases when including mass shootings involving multiple weapons. The handgun is the preferred weapon, by far. (So why ban AR-15’s, and not handguns?)
3) The number of mass shootings has not dramatically increased since at least as far back as the 1980’s.
4) According to the Rand Corporation’s extensive study on gun control policies, NONE of them show any change in the prevalence of mass shootings. This means the following popular gun control measures are actually meaningless:

The science: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html

a. Background checks
b. Ban on sales of assault weapons and high capacity magazines
c. Child-access prevention laws
d. Concealed carry laws
e. Licensing and permitting requirements
f. Minimum age requirements, and
g. Mandatory waiting periods.

Note that the RAND research has already studied your idea of banning AR-15's (and high capacity magazines) and concluded it has no meaning effect on gun violence.


You construct many arguments against things I never said. So clearly this is an argument you are having in your own head.

I've remedied that above, and I am now directly rebutting your arguments.


The bottom line is owning a gun makes you less safe, not more safe.

That is demonstrably not true. (See above.)

I don't imagine myself being in a life or death situation from a violent >attacker and needing a gun to save me, because the likelihood of that >happening is minuscule.

Agreed. Same feeling here. The chances seem miniscule, but are clearly not zero. And BTW, technically, you just did imagine it. But you gave it no weight.

We have a larger chance of dying in an automobile.

Again agreed, but we don't ban people from driving (which is a privilege, not a Constitutionally guaranteed right!) We don't even effectively enforce the driving laws that are already on the books. (So why make more? Maybe the problem lies elsewhere?)

Statistically, you are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when being treated at the hospital! (About 90,000 die each year, and growing, from preventable medical errors.) I may provide the numbers in my next post. An eye-opener for many who just regurgitate the media's and anti-gunner talking points.

And yet many people give that short shrift in their life. But the idea of not >having a gun if it were ever needed terrifies them.

IDK. Hasn't been my experience.
I did not purchase my first handgun out of any feelings of terror. Rather, my job at the time often put me in some pretty bad neighborhoods and I affirmatively decided that it was better to be prepared than to rely on the unreliable actions of others, should I ever be a position to require their immediate assistance.

As to the election, again you ignore the facts. Virginia has had a >Republican government for 26 years! The Democrats made a campaign issue of >gun control and won. What could be more clear than that??? How about a >referendum?

Google the word "pendulum".

I actually agree with you that the 2nd Amendment has become a disfavored right.
But speaking of referenda, how about a Constitution?
See the dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, a case concerning a local ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. In it, Justice Thomas correctly notes that (at the time) "roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons."

You may not like it. (And that's OK - I totally respect your right to have and express an opinion). But change the Constitution. Good luck with that, BTW.


What I was really writing about is how some people are literally crazy enough >about gun control to threaten violence or swear they will obstruct or ignore >the laws if passed.

Sounds a lot like the run-up to the Revolutionary War to me.

That's anarchy.

One man's anarchy is another man's civil disobedience.
Google "Three Precenters".

You said the problem is "sick individuals". I agree. And those sick >individuals will be locked up if they don't obey the law.

Doesn't appear to be the case. Witness: Nicholas Cruz (gunman at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School), and he's just the poster boy for my reply here. The list goes on and on. Sick individuals are NOT "locked-up" in this country. In the case of Cruz, literally everything that could be done to keep him in society, was done. Read the book: Why Meadow Died, by Andrew Pollack. He lost his daughter in that shooting - and EVEN HE doesn't blame AR-15's!!! How many more Cruz's are out there?

This Cruz guy worked the counter at the Dollar Tree store (less than a mile from where I work).

Wake up. (?)

Or not. It is your choice.
And it's a free country. Make whatever choice is right for you.
But don't choose for others, unless there truly is some impressive public benefit to be had by infringing on the rights of others. (and in this case, there isn't).

 

Jose Curvo <jcurvo@mymail.com> wrote in news:qvfknq$mqj$1
@gioia.aioe.org:

Afraid you might somehow
be misidentified as a loon?

I have a t-shirt, Curvo...

It says (on the front):

I am a
P A T I E N T,
man...







See how long it takes... (for you all to catch that one)

On the back it says:

I have guns,
drugs,
knives,
needles,
psychoses,
anger,
hate,
R-complex..

But I DON'T
go around killing people!

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 5:44:10 AM UTC-5, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> You think the second amendment is negotiable.

The SCOTUS has ruled that interpreting the second amendment *is* a work in progress and will continue to be resolved as our needs change.


> Come for my guns and you will get them - lead first and I can kill 27 before reloading.

No, if you resist giving up your guns you will die, most likely without taking any other lives. It has happened many times.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-aa-shooting-20181105-story.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_2009

If you want to die, point a gun at a cop.

Here's a question that will shut you gun grabbing motherfuckers up until you get your next influx of stupidity.

Guns kill people right ?

Very infrequently. Most of the time they sit around collecting dust.


> Well i Chicago they were bitching that people wet top other surrounding cities to but guns ad brought them back and shot people, therefore guns are the problem.

"Wet top"??? Can you learn to check read what you write???


> Well dickheads, HOW COME THOSE SURROUNDING CITIES DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SHOOTINGS ? Guns are readily available there and they do not have a problem with shootings. Neither does Arizona which has constitutional carry which means no license, concealed or not. The place would be a bloodbath if that shit was so.

Virginia used to have few restrictions on buying guns, so people from DC and Maryland would order 50 guns at a time and take them back to other jurisdictions. That doesn't mean Virginia doesn't have gun violence. In fact, Virginia finally got with the program and restricted gun purchases more.


> People point to Europe, UK whatever but it can work there because it has been so long they have been at the mercy of those physically stronger with no guns, that there are practically no guns available. Plus they are so emasculated now they will let some thug break in their house, take whatever the want and rape their daughter. REAL Brits are no doubt rolling over in their graves. The sun never set, hell now the sun never rises.

Now you are just making up stuff. Typical Jurb stuff.


> Ghandi, GHANDI said the worst day was when the British took their guns.

Do you know the actual, full quote? No, of course not. That's also typical Jurb. Try learning something. Do a simple Google search and find out what Gandhi actually said, as well as how to spell his name.


> You want to take my gun so I can't defend myself against you and your fucking mob. Or your "refugees" who are really terrorists. You think those countries are giving us their doctors, engineers n shit ? Fuck no,they are emptying out their jails. And not good folk who just happen to disagree with the regime, they keep those so they can't get access to the western media. They want rid of the thieves and rapists n shit.

I think you should not have guns because you threaten to do so many dangerous things with them.

You fucking idiot liberals want to let in all these criminals from other countries and take our guns away ?

You got another thing coming.

I, and many other will defend our gun rights with guns. I can kill 27 before reloading.

Molon labe.

No, the only way you will kill 27 without reloading is if you go on a mass shooting spree in a church or a mall or a school which is exactly why you should be red flagged now that you appear to be promising that.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:HpJSF.160135
$GFe.103064@fx12.am4:

Ah yes, the "many people have been saved by not wearing
a seatbelt" argument.

Hehehehe... In Virginia it is OK to drive and talk on the cell
phone. They figure if "much of the state is populated with folks
coming from or going to one of many various three letter agencies,
they might need to talk on the phone and yet we should also trust
them to have the presence of mind to do it in a manner which does not
cause a safety issue."

Me seeing the stupidity of California drivers where it is illegal,
and the way folks drive in Virginia, where it is legal... I say that
trust works...

unless they social strata is already rife with "I'm a grown man"
dumbfucks who have for three generations now thought the "it's a free
country" means free to do whatever you want because their stupid
fathers didn't raise them worth a shit. Now half the state is full
of do whatever you want idiots, and it spreads east like a disease as
California crap always has.

I liked being able to go to a sports bar or pool hall and see most
of the folks there wearing slacks and shirts and ties, likely able to
beat the living fuck out of anyone 'jumping bad' like idiots do in
cali. I felt safer being around a much higher percentile of actual
honorable men and women than what a lot of the rest of the country
has come to call 'normal amuricin rednecks'. It was a joy to live in
proximity to DARPA and the NSA and such (The museum of cryptology was
FAR OUT!). And DC and the Smithsonian and Dulles with the Air and
Space museum. The space shuttle is HUGE!

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 7:33:36 AM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 11:28:55 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 10:44:15 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

I think you may have totally missed my point about all guns being LETHAL.
Which of course, is their entire reason to exist.
That is their purpose. It matters not how it is done, what you call it, or how it looks and feels.

Whether someone is killed with a .22 or 380 small caliber compact handgun, or a 338 Lapua Magnum precision, long-distance competition rifle, makes no difference. That person is still DEAD.

Anti-gunners want to ban entire "classes" of firearms based on features OTHER than the one that should really matter: How safe is the gun in the right hands, and does it do the job intended? Beyond that - you need to look at the person behind the gun, not the scary black plastic gun components or features.

You do know that the deadliest mass school shooting in America was committed with only HANDGUNS, right. Not "assault rifles".

And you know what, I don't even believe the entire field of "gun violence" is a big deal. It's actually been on the decline for decades, even as total gun ownership (as % of population), and total firearms in private ownership (raw #'s) has skyrocketed. And the population has grown significantly as well.
(That's another way to say if gun ownership were the problem, you'd KNOW IT! - There would be zero doubt.)

The TRUTH is the number of deaths appropriately attributed to gun violence is declining, and far less than a lot of other aspects in daily life: medical malpractice, texting and driving, assault other than with firearms (including someone's bare fists, BTW!).

Subtract suicides, police action, and gang-on-gang violence, and the numbers are even less demanding of a solution. Any solution. It's just not a big deal.

Of course, school & church shootings grab the headlines, and a public outcry ensues (Note: Both are "gun free zones" in many jurisdictions.) And everybody's got a solution - but none of them are proven to work (in fact, most are proven to NOT work), because they don't focus on the actual problem - the crazed, murdering individual. (who I guarantee you could care less about gun-free zone laws, and what color plastic the gun is made from.)

It truly is like outlawing spoons to prevent diabetes.
Maybe if we just outlaw the scary black plastic spoons?

Personally, I agree tweaks to the system could benefit all, but it's never going to happen when basic gun ownership in under attack. Give an inch, take a mile, sort of thing. For example, the current system relies upon felony record prohibition - practically guaranteeing that the "first time felon" will never be denied a weapon. And some felonies are not violent (i.e., white collar crime), and I'm not sure those should rise to the level of forever forfeiting one's 2A rights.

No. None of that matters.
For the typical anti-gunner, it's encroach, encroach, encroach, until the 2nd Amendment is meaningless, or so unworkable under a bewildering patchwork of laws as to be impossible to enjoy.

You can do what you want, and believe what you want.

But if you can imagine yourself in a really ugly life-and-death situation, say a violent felony assault against your person, would you rather have the means to defend yourself (and those you love), or do you think you could negotiate a "time-out" with your attacker to allow enough time to call "911", and then wait for the police to arrive? (who may or may not help)

In reality, the tens of millions of citizens who carry a firearm daily will never find themselves in situations where deadly force against an attacker will be needed. But you never know. Watch the nightly news - bad thing happen even in the best of neighborhoods. (BTW: Something to consider - when you're carrying, you actually go out of your way to avoid confrontation. Your attitude changes. Even if you're in the right to pull a weapon in self-defense, that's not going to stop the subsequent, expensive legal process, or civil lawsuits. But it's something that often gets overlooked until it hits home. Responsible gun owners don't go looking for trouble.)

The problem is sick individuals.
No amount of regulation on law-abiding citizens is ever going to fix that.

And as far as Virginia - we'll see. I wouldn't read too much into it.
It could just as easily be explained by conservatives (Republicans) kicking themselves not getting out the vote, especially in a midterm election - happens all the time. We might see a backlash, 180 turnaround next election, or people flocking to the gun stores for their first time purchases.

Rick would freak out if free charging stations were outlawed, and a lengthy process to obtain a special license to own an EV were put into place.

You talk strange dude, like you haven't been out of the house for over 100 years. I do have to license my car, just like all the other autos in the US.

That is the sort of inane logic people here use. They are fine with having a special test and license to make sure you are a competent driver and won't constitute a threat to others. You also have to license autos and certain types are simply not allowed on the roads. In fact, in many states there are exorbitant taxes on them and annual inspections.

So are you saying you would agree to have similar laws regarding guns?


> Some weapons cost a small fortune just for the right to own, and you pay that tax every year even if the weapon can't be fired. Like too many liberals, it's OK to demand that others give up their rights, since they don't exercise them. My definition of an assault weapon is one that can empty the entire magazine with one pull of the trigger. That results in 'Spray and Pray' that you actually hit anything.

So you mean it's not ok to tax and regulate guns like autos? I'm confused.


> Our biggest problem is that the ACLU went to the courts to have the insane asylums shut down. All that did was put the nutcases out into the streets and make it harder to get them the help that they needed. No normal human would pick up any weapon to go on a killing spree.

So you believe that all the mass shootings are by people freed from insane asylums by the ACLU??? Wow! I need to killfile you. You are just too nuts.


> It is amazing that supposedly grown men are terrified of a little piece of inert metal.

No, I'm not afraid of the gun, I'm afraid of the person who feels he needs a gun.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b240ec44-4bff-48ae-9175-9546590469a0@googlegroups.com:

I think you should not have guns because you threaten to do so
many dangerous things with them.

Blowguns and curare darts are a lot quieter and more discrete.

Could substitute (or simply add) a ricin dart too. Or maybe a little
Polonium. Have to have a lead lined (or clad) blowgun though .

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 9:39:36 AM UTC-5, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:18:08 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:01:47 PM UTC-5, Jose Curvo wrote:
On 01/11/2020 12:44 AM, Rick C wrote:
I was reading about the gun control legislation that is promised by
the newly elected Democratic majority in Virginia. It seems this is
angering a number of voters even if not enough to have controlled the
election. There have been threats of violence and armed resistance
to any new gun laws passed.

That is so illogical,

They're loons! People having little interest in owning guns are the only
ones who should be trusted with owning them.

A good friend of mine used to have a number of guns, until he moved to a retirement community where they don't allow them.

That's likely unconstitutional, unless it's an actual retirement home,
assisted living or such. But if it's just a retirement community where
you buy and own your own home, it is unconstitutional.

You sir, don't seem to understand the Constitution. It doesn't say you can have all the guns you want. It says the government can't restrict you from having guns. If you are renting a house from me or if you are buying a house from me, I can refuse to sell to you or rent to you if you have guns. The buying thing would require it to be in the deed, but deed restrictions are not at all uncommon.

Now he has a few non-guns and a lot of other military collectibles. He is also a life member of the NRA. He can't abide by the NRA's position on bump stocks and silencers though.

The NRA did not oppose banning bump stocks.

Duly corrected. But they oppose banning silencers which is even worse as well as undefensible.

He is at a quandary as to the restrictions on magazine sizes. He laments that it won't be legal to own a collectable rifle and the clip that was used with it, like a WWI 1903 Springfield Rifle with a 5 round clip.

I feel his pain, but I won't take his stand against those who wish to protect our population against the threat of those who should not have weapons of mass shootings. There may be a way to compromise, but it is inevitable that we will have more restrictions on owning guns than we have today.

It's not much more difficult to kill people with 6 ten round mags or one
60 round. There are a whole lot of things that would have some effect,
but so far, no one is talking about those. Mostly it's tilting at windmills.

You miss the point. They are windmills that aren't producing any electricity. There is no real reason to allow people to have various weapons. Talk of banning guns creates hysteria in some. For the most part those are the people who should not have guns.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 10:26:22 AM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 7:33:36 AM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:
The machine gun served a different purpose. It was for battle on a large open space. Night fire had tracer rounds to let you see where the bullets were going. As the barrel heated up, the path changed. Too many fools believe old war movies of some moron holding a machine gun and running with it while firing. They quickly get too hot to hold, and continuous fire destroys the barrel. Our biggest problem is that the ACLU went to the courts to have the insane asylums shut down. All that did was put the nutcases out into the streets and make it harder to get them the help that they needed. No normal human would pick up any weapon to go on a killing spree.

It is amazing that supposedly grown men are terrified of a little piece of inert metal.

You know Mike, I actually have a box of 25 9mm tracer rounds in the safe.
I have no real need or use for them (and no place to legally shoot them), but they were only $10 at the gun show.

And BTW, I don't personally believe the arguments surrounding "full auto" vs. "semi-auto" achieve much with the anti-gunner crowd. To them, that distinction is hardly even worth a mention. Much better to argue the merits of gun ownership, rather than the features of any particular weapon. My opinion.

Some of the loons want to ban everything except single shot, muzzle loading rifles. I also get tired of hearing about guns being delivered to your door, or buying huge numbers without a Federal gun dealer's license. Try that, and you'll go to Federal prison.

Tracers were fun during night fire, but my preferred weapon will never be legal for civilian ownership. It was the M72, Light Antitank Weapon, designed to disable a moving tank on the battlefield.

Cruz and other punks committed crimes that the Obama administration refused to allow the police to add to their records, so nothing was there to prevent them from buying a gun. Obama claimed it would protect 'innocent children' from having a lifelong criminal record they didn't deserve. That 'kids will be kids' bullshit. It is more like 'Bad kids will be bad kids'.