Ask Your Questions About Open Enrollment At AARP’s Webinar ‘Medicare: Your Questions Answered’ at 7 p.m. ET. Register Here

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 7,434
Registered: ‎11-18-2009

Re: Gun control must be taken serious, it concerns every one

Message 21 of 160 (124 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

MIseker wrote:

jimc91 wrote:

Going forward IMO America and the entire world would be better served by a laser focus on "MASS MURDER" rather that MASS SHOOTINGS.  Look at other countries outside the USA.  Cars, truck, knives, chemicals, hammers, hatchets, airplanes, shoe bombs, and Guns.

 

IMO to place our efforts on banning or regulating an inanimate object is similar to running on a treadmill.  Plenty of effort but you stay in the same place.

 

Until we understand how to recognize the causes of evil in our world we will continue to experience "MURDER and MASS MURDER" .


perfect example of what im talking about. SHift focus away from GUN DEATHS as a priority. By the way Jim, a federal registry and limits on purchases whould have flagged this nut, and many others. Then we have them on hand to examine.


I believe that jm's very rational point was that it is the murder that is important, not the tool. Think of it this way - if a friend or loved one is killed, do you feel better if the killer used a truck, a bomb, or a knife instead of a gun? 

 

So, yes, it is a SHIFT - a shift to the more important element of the discussion of  killings.


When's the last time that over 200 people got killed and over 500 wounded by a person with a truck or a knife?   This shooter used semi-automatic weapons that had the capability of slaughtering hundreds within minutes. Show how it was the founding fathers' intent that the second amendment should give people that capability. The Constitution allows for firearms to be regulated an that's what we should do.

 

200??? I missed that report.

 

your


 


Again, do your  homework. I did. Obama had nothing to do with it. Again with your alt right division.


Here is where I did my homework, where did you do yours:

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/06/national-rifle-association/nra-claim-...

 

Merely typing "alt-right" does not change facts.


But did Obama approve their legality? Sort of, but approved is probably the wrong word.

 

 

NRA spokeswoman Amy Hunter pointed us to a June 2010 approval letter from ATF, an agency under executive purview, sent to Slide Fire, a bump stock manufacturer. Spelling out the legal definition of a firearm, ATF’s technology chief John Spencer determined it was not regulated by law.

"The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed," Spencer wrote. "Accordingly, we find that the ‘bump-stock’ is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act."

Bump stocks harness a weapon’s recoil to cause the user’s finger to squeeze the trigger repeatedly, but because they don’t alter the gun’s internal mechanisms, they were considered lawful.

We found a similar 2012 letter addressed to Bump Fire, a competing manufacturer.

But just as these bump stocks didn’t qualify for regulation, two similar devices did.

The difference? The Akins Accelerator and the Autoglove were determined in 2007 and 2017, respectively, to have mechanical parts that enhanced the trigger mechanism, making them by definition machineguns.

"Electrically-driven trigger devices are considered ‘machineguns’ because they are a ‘combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,’ " ATF’s letter to AutoGlove read.

Automatic weapons sales have been restricted since the 1934 National Firearms Act, and 1986 regulations made it much harder for civilians to get an automatic weapon like a machine gun.

Obama administration’s role

Experts in firearm policy were divided when we asked about the fairness of the NRA’s characterization.

Adam Winkler, a law professor at University of California, Los Angeles, who specializes in guns, said it was appropriate to characterize the move as an approval of its sale under the Obama administration.

"Not because they liked it, but because the law did not permit them to prohibit it," Winkler said.

Other legal experts stressed that it wasn’t an approval, but rather a determination that current law didn’t allow for its regulation.

"The statement implies Obama or (U.S. Attorney General Eric) Holder was somehow involved, and that it was an issue that wouldn’t have been approved in any other administration, and that’s technically incorrect," said Rick Vasquez, a former Firearms Technology Branch official who first signed off on the recommendation the ATF could not regulate the Slide Fire.

"We never had any political people come down to our office saying we must or must not approve (the Slide Fire)," Vasquez said.

Obama issued a slew of executive orders promoting stricter gun control, which the Trump administration has been rolling back, including a measure that previously prevented people with mental illness from buying guns.

"I believe (the NRA) were stating that just to point out that this wasn’t some rogue decision made during a Republican administration, which would be more friendly to gun owners, and therefore that when they re-evaluate it, they’re going to have to take a really close look at the law," said John Pierce, a lawyer and advocate for gun rights.

In order to re-evaluate the bump stock, Vasquez said the ATF would have to change the way it interpreted the National Firearms Act or issue new legislation that would allow the device to be regulated.

Our ruling

The NRA said, "The Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions."

We indeed found two occasions in which ATF, a bureau within the executive branch, decided it could not regulate bump stocks during the Obama administration.

These decisions allowed two companies to sell bump stocks. It’s important to note this was not a statement of Obama’s preferred policy, which called for more regulation of guns, but was what the agency determined it had to do under the language of current law.

We rate this statement Mostly True.


 this is from your article. mybe you should read it. yes indeed it happened on Obamas watch. but youre a long way from it falling on Obamas plate. . DOuble standard much?

So it begins.
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 7,421
Registered: ‎07-30-2009

Re: Gun control must be taken serious, it concerns every one

Message 22 of 160 (136 Views)

@Olderscout66, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree...

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 20,348
Registered: ‎11-09-2011

Re: Gun control must be taken serious, it concerns every one

Message 23 of 160 (98 Views)

jimc91 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

 

Why does the irrational Right continue to argue to keep available to the public weapons that are capable of killing at least 48 people and injuring hundreds of others in just minutes?


Because the irrational left insists on driving their cars!


Nothing but evasion to actually answering the question because there is no rational answer.  I feel that supporting people having the right to own weapons capable of killing 48 people or more and wounding hundreds in minutes, is supporting the possibility that they may choose to do just that with those weapons.  Guns were designed to kill, unlike all of the stuff you listed before.


Why are you not interested in finding a solution to the root cause of mass murder?

 

I believe that is a worthy goal.  Is your view of your fellow man so hopeless that you do not believe the root cause can be effectively dealt with?

 

 

 

 


The "root cause" is homicidal insanity. We know virtually nothing more about the killers because they usually kill themselves, hence all the evidence is "foresnic psychiatry", aka expert guessing.

 

Why are you not interested in keeping the instruments of the mayhem out of the hands of those who would do us harm? Do you have some secret RW purpose for having weapons whose one unique characteristic is, with them, you can kill the most people in the shortest time? Is Republican policy designed to ensure you can take the 2d Amendment solution to elections you lose? If not, then WHAT?

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 7,421
Registered: ‎07-30-2009

Re: Gun control must be taken serious, it concerns every one

Message 24 of 160 (92 Views)

ChasKy53 wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

 

Why does the irrational Right continue to argue to keep available to the public weapons that are capable of killing at least 48 people and injuring hundreds of others in just minutes?


Because the irrational left insists on driving their cars!


Nothing but evasion to actually answering the question because there is no rational answer.  I feel that supporting people having the right to own weapons capable of killing 48 people or more and wounding hundreds in minutes, is supporting the possibility that they may choose to do just that with those weapons.  Guns were designed to kill, unlike all of the stuff you listed before.


Why are you not interested in finding a solution to the root cause of mass murder?

 

I believe that is a worthy goal.  Is your view of your fellow man so hopeless that you do not believe the root cause can be effectively dealt with?

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 24,842
Registered: ‎07-11-2013

Re: Gun control must be taken serious, it concerns every one

[ Edited ]
Message 25 of 160 (88 Views)

 


NOTHAPPENING wrote:

alferdpacker wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

jimc91 wrote:

Emotions seem to be getting the best of the left on this board and are clouding their ability to think critically.  What a shame...

 

People commit mass murder. Inanimate objects do not operate themselves, they need an "operator".  In order for mass murder to be committed, the "Operator" is clearly a flawed human being.

 

Not a difficult concept for people with the ability to think logically.

 


Lack of rational a logical thought seems to be getting the best of the Right on this board. We will never quite manufacturing human beings capable of committing mass murders. We can however limit the tools that they can use. Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is an great start and limiting the capability of rapid fire is another one. Rational a logical thought concludes in us taking these steps through eliminating bump-stocks and limiting the number of rounds allowed in any magazine.

 

Why does the irrational Right continue to argue to keep available to the public weapons that are capable of killing at least 48 people and injuring hundreds of others in just minutes?


Because the irrational left would have to include cars, trucks, airplanes, fertilizers, Muriatic acid, nails/screws, other components for bomb making, and a list too long to mention.  All on the list (plus many others) can be easily made to kill in excess of 48 people.


Yes - but how is the greatest killer of all - conservative stupidity - one obvious example being - "hey, y'all, hold my beer and watch this" - going to be eliminated?

 

 

 


I used to think you were one of the intelligent posters on the left until this post by you!


Thanks for the attempt at a personal attack that actually ends up inadvertently being complimentary and flattering...

"Your opprobrium is highest and sweetest approbation."

 

 

 

Have pity for Melania - she wakes up with a jerk every morning
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 20,348
Registered: ‎11-09-2011

Re: Gun control must be taken serious, it concerns every one

Message 26 of 160 (87 Views)

Folks, the RWers have tried to confuse the issue by focusing on what a gun is used for instead of what it's designed for. "Assault Rifle" includes 22cal weapons used by Special Forces for clandestine ops, and pertty much every long gun issued to the military of every nation.

 

What kills people is THE RATE OF FIRE. We already agreed fully-automatic guns have no place in civilian hands, but it's SEMI-AUTOMATIC LONG GUNS and other guns with high capacity magazines/clips that do 95% of the homicidal killing in America, and THAT'S what we need to focus on.

 

Ban semi-auto long guns and all guns that can fire more than 7 times without reloading. All existing semi-auto's can be converted with little fuss as can the clips. Let's get behind SANITY and rid our streets on the things that have no unique use other than killing people quickly.

 

 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 20,857
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Gun control must be taken serious, it concerns every one

Message 27 of 160 (91 Views)

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

 

Why does the irrational Right continue to argue to keep available to the public weapons that are capable of killing at least 48 people and injuring hundreds of others in just minutes?


Because the irrational left insists on driving their cars!


Nothing but evasion to actually answering the question because there is no rational answer.  I feel that supporting people having the right to own weapons capable of killing 48 people or more and wounding hundreds in minutes, is supporting the possibility that they may choose to do just that with those weapons.  Guns were designed to kill, unlike all of the stuff you listed before.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 10,977
Registered: ‎06-07-2010

Re: Gun control must be taken serious, it concerns every one

Message 28 of 160 (95 Views)

alferdpacker wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

jimc91 wrote:

Emotions seem to be getting the best of the left on this board and are clouding their ability to think critically.  What a shame...

 

People commit mass murder. Inanimate objects do not operate themselves, they need an "operator".  In order for mass murder to be committed, the "Operator" is clearly a flawed human being.

 

Not a difficult concept for people with the ability to think logically.

 


Lack of rational a logical thought seems to be getting the best of the Right on this board. We will never quite manufacturing human beings capable of committing mass murders. We can however limit the tools that they can use. Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is an great start and limiting the capability of rapid fire is another one. Rational a logical thought concludes in us taking these steps through eliminating bump-stocks and limiting the number of rounds allowed in any magazine.

 

Why does the irrational Right continue to argue to keep available to the public weapons that are capable of killing at least 48 people and injuring hundreds of others in just minutes?


Because the irrational left would have to include cars, trucks, airplanes, fertilizers, Muriatic acid, nails/screws, other components for bomb making, and a list too long to mention.  All on the list (plus many others) can be easily made to kill in excess of 48 people.


Yes - but how is the greatest killer of all - conservative stupidity - one obvious example being - "hey, y'all, hold my beer and watch this" - going to be eliminated?

 

 

 


I used to think you were one of the intelligent posters on the left until this post by you!

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 10,977
Registered: ‎06-07-2010

Re: Gun control must be taken serious, it concerns every one

Message 29 of 160 (89 Views)

ChasKy53 wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

jimc91 wrote:

Emotions seem to be getting the best of the left on this board and are clouding their ability to think critically.  What a shame...

 

People commit mass murder. Inanimate objects do not operate themselves, they need an "operator".  In order for mass murder to be committed, the "Operator" is clearly a flawed human being.

 

Not a difficult concept for people with the ability to think logically.

 


Lack of rational a logical thought seems to be getting the best of the Right on this board. We will never quite manufacturing human beings capable of committing mass murders. We can however limit the tools that they can use. Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is an great start and limiting the capability of rapid fire is another one. Rational a logical thought concludes in us taking these steps through eliminating bump-stocks and limiting the number of rounds allowed in any magazine.

 

Why does the irrational Right continue to argue to keep available to the public weapons that are capable of killing at least 48 people and injuring hundreds of others in just minutes?


Because the irrational left would have to include cars, trucks, airplanes, fertilizers, Muriatic acid, nails/screws, other components for bomb making, and a list too long to mention.  All on the list (plus many others) can be easily made to kill in excess of 48 people.


None of this distracts from the fact that guns to do these crimes are much more easy to obtain and use than any of those things you listed. We can easily control how many rounds are allowed in a magazine and how many people can be killed in minutes with guns.

 

Again:

 

Why does the irrational Right continue to argue to keep available to the public weapons that are capable of killing at least 48 people and injuring hundreds of others in just minutes?


Because the irrational left insists on driving their cars!

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 20,857
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Gun control must be taken serious, it concerns every one

Message 30 of 160 (83 Views)

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

jimc91 wrote:

Emotions seem to be getting the best of the left on this board and are clouding their ability to think critically.  What a shame...

 

People commit mass murder. Inanimate objects do not operate themselves, they need an "operator".  In order for mass murder to be committed, the "Operator" is clearly a flawed human being.

 

Not a difficult concept for people with the ability to think logically.

 


Lack of rational a logical thought seems to be getting the best of the Right on this board. We will never quite manufacturing human beings capable of committing mass murders. We can however limit the tools that they can use. Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is an great start and limiting the capability of rapid fire is another one. Rational a logical thought concludes in us taking these steps through eliminating bump-stocks and limiting the number of rounds allowed in any magazine.

 

Why does the irrational Right continue to argue to keep available to the public weapons that are capable of killing at least 48 people and injuring hundreds of others in just minutes?


Because the irrational left would have to include cars, trucks, airplanes, fertilizers, Muriatic acid, nails/screws, other components for bomb making, and a list too long to mention.  All on the list (plus many others) can be easily made to kill in excess of 48 people.


None of this distracts from the fact that guns to do these crimes are much more easy to obtain and use than any of those things you listed. We can easily control how many rounds are allowed in a magazine and how many people can be killed in minutes with guns.

 

Again:

 

Why does the irrational Right continue to argue to keep available to the public weapons that are capable of killing at least 48 people and injuring hundreds of others in just minutes?


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"