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

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 30,346
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

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

Message 81 of 160 (80 Views)

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

 

 

200??? I missed that report.

 

I fully agree with getting rid of those bump stocks that Obama approved - let's regulate them out of existence.


 


OK rk, it was only 48 killed and well over 400 wounded, I guess there is no concern then? So when was the last time somone killed 48 and wounded over 400 in minutes with a knife or a truck?


Any thoughts on my comment about that which made this one rather unique - bump stocks?

 


Of course. Its a distraction. Obama didnt. but tou are not on the topic of gun deaths.


Multiple posting of a lie does not make it the truth.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 30,346
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

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

Message 82 of 160 (82 Views)

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.

 

I fully agree with getting rid of those bump stocks that Obama approved - let's regulate them out of existence.


 


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.

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

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

Message 83 of 160 (79 Views)

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

 


Another wishy washy definition by the left.  My definition is any weapon that fires automatically (including bump stock) is an assault rifle.  Most of the left think if the gun looks very menacing, it is an assault rifle.

 

Do you think anyone one on the left can come up with a concise definition of THEIR OWN so they might even have a chance of getting it passed into law?


Your definition is bunk, semi automatic rifles are also considered to be assault weapons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle


On the contrary, using your Wiki link:

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4][5] Assault rifles were first used during World War II

 

Try clicking on selective -fire rifle and you will see that your answer is the one that's BUNK and mine is correct.  The left doesn't even know what an assault rifle is!


And it is still an assault rifle when set on the semi-automatic mode, isn't it?

 

There is no logical or reasonable reason for anyone to have the right or the need to own weapons which have magazines that hold more than 6 or seven rounds and can fire so rapidly that 48 people can be killed and hundreds wounded within minutes.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 30,346
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

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

Message 84 of 160 (54 Views)

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

Olderscout66 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.


It's not a "shift", its a deception. Until we have a foolproof way to identify which seeminly normal people will become homicidal maniacs, or just careless thugs using guns to kill for profit or revenge, then talking about mental health as a solution to gun violence is CRAZY.


So, in the example above you wouldn't mind having a friend or loved one murdered just so it wasn't by a gun. Now - that is CRAZY.


dont be an a$$. 21 years ago my 19 year old Daughter was " murdered by car". The 2 years later my 16 yr old got his license. SHould i have NEVER LET HIM DRIVE? Carefull with your wild scenarios sonny...a lot of people have been where you havent.


Your personal family tragedy does not effect the importance of focusing on the killer not just his tools - sonny.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 30,346
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

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

Message 85 of 160 (52 Views)

MIseker wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

 

 

200??? I missed that report.

 

I fully agree with getting rid of those bump stocks that Obama approved - let's regulate them out of existence.


 


OK rk, it was only 48 killed and well over 400 wounded, I guess there is no concern then? So when was the last time somone killed 48 and wounded over 400 in minutes with a knife or a truck?


Any thoughts on my comment about that which made this one rather unique - bump stocks?

 


Sure. Lack of federal regulation and oversight allowed him to buy this arsenal un noticed. we hear nothing stood out about ths mass murderer..and there is is as plain as your nose, and not even a comment on that. wanna stop maedmen from doing this again? you can sure cut down on the size of their arsenal. 


Any thoughts on my comment about that which made this one rather unique - bump stocks?

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 30,346
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

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

Message 86 of 160 (50 Views)

mandm84 wrote:

rk9152 , you have spoke out about " bump stocks " but where and when have you ever spoken out against Assault Rifles ??? I must have missed that one.


A bump stock makes a weapon an "automatic", being called "assault rifle" does not.

 

And yes, apparently you did miss that.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 4,794
Registered: ‎07-27-2011

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

[ Edited ]
Message 87 of 160 (68 Views)

The Assault Rifle was developed for the Military. Enough said for those with common sense. These Mass Killing Instruments loaded with 30 - 50 Armor Piercing Rounds have NO place in civilian's hands.

Get your kicks with a 7 round Long Rifle like John Wayne did and our Nation will be a safer place !!!

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

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

[ Edited ]
Message 88 of 160 (113 Views)

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

alferdpacker wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

alferdpacker wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

mandm84 wrote:

rk9152 , you have spoke out about " bump stocks " but where and when have you ever spoken out against Assault Rifles ??? I must have missed that one.


The left has ill defined "assault rifle".  Does it mean one that has a magazine that holds bullets? Does it mean full auto? Does it mean semi-auto? Does the magazine have a capacity limit? Does the "look" of the gun make it an assault rifle (looks menacing)? Or does any gun qualify as an assault rifle?

 

What do you consider an assault rifle?


You tell us what's an assault rifle, and what's not...

 

I have some ex military surplus, new manufactured exact copies of military arms and one H&K

 

Which are assault rifles?

 

Whitworth Rifle (world's first sniper rifle)

 

Trapdoor Springfield

 

30-40 Krag-Jorgensen

 

 surplus ex military M1 Garand

 

Springfield Armory M-14 (also Garand design)

 

Heckler and Koch G3

 

All were considered the ultimate firearm of their era...

 

All the semi-automatics can be made to "bump fire" using rubber bands and small hand carved pieces of wood - takes about 15 minutes. 


Another wishy washy definition by the left.  My definition is any weapon that fires automatically (including bump stock) is an assault rifle.  Most of the left think if the gun looks very menacing, it is an assault rifle.

 

Do you think anyone one on the left can come up with a concise definition of THEIR OWN so they might even have a chance of getting it passed into law?


So by your definition - because my 1961 Remington Nylon 66 can be made to bump fire - that puts it in the class of assault rifles...

 

Your definition is - like trump's mental processes - half a bubble off of plumb.


No your 1961 Remington is not an assault weapon UNLESS you change the stock to a bump fire stock or make modifications to the weapon to fire automatically.  Your definition is something from Obama's mental process - way off center.


I can make it bump fire quite reliably using a couple of rubber bands and a piece of wood.

Have done so repeatedly because 22lr ammo is much cheaper than 7.62x51, even though I reload everything I shoot that can be reloaded...

Fitting a bump fire stock is not always necessary.

Have you earned mechanical engineering degrees?   I have - BSME and MSME..

Physics hasn't changed.

Technologically ignorant post.

 

 

 

 

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 89 of 160 (99 Views)

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

mandm84 wrote:

rk9152 , you have spoke out about " bump stocks " but where and when have you ever spoken out against Assault Rifles ??? I must have missed that one.


The left has ill defined "assault rifle".  Does it mean one that has a magazine that holds bullets? Does it mean full auto? Does it mean semi-auto? Does the magazine have a capacity limit? Does the "look" of the gun make it an assault rifle (looks menacing)? Or does any gun qualify as an assault rifle?

 

What do you consider an assault rifle?


The foolishness about banning ugly guns was a product of Republican obstructionism against the Brady Bill - they wanted to focus on FORM, not FUNCTION, and that's stupid.

 

Forget lables, what needs to be banned are semi-automatic long guns and all guns that can fire more than 7 times without reloading. It might take a couple years to get all the oversized magazines/clips off the streets and all the semiauto weapons modified so the mechanism does NOT return to the firing position each time you pull the tirgger, but the time to BEGIN IS NOW!

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

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

Message 90 of 160 (92 Views)

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

mandm84 wrote:

rk9152 , you have spoke out about " bump stocks " but where and when have you ever spoken out against Assault Rifles ??? I must have missed that one.


The left has ill defined "assault rifle".  Does it mean one that has a magazine that holds bullets? Does it mean full auto? Does it mean semi-auto? Does the magazine have a capacity limit? Does the "look" of the gun make it an assault rifle (looks menacing)? Or does any gun qualify as an assault rifle?

 

What do you consider an assault rifle?


The "ugly gun" foolishness was forced into the Brady Bill by GOPers who refused to let the function and not the form decide what was regulated by the law.

 

Forget the names, what needs to be banned are semi-automatic long guns and all guns that can fire more than 7 times without reloading. It will take a few years to get the current military hardware off the streets, but NOW is the time to begin.