America's Gun Violence

1226227229231232

Comments

  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,799
    Funny how they were so open to it last week. I'm guessing they don't like those other little stipulations that also limit increasing rate of fire. Pathetic.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other Democrats last week introduced their own bill in the Senate to ban bump stocks that would prohibit "the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire," according to a press release.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 9,455
    tbergs said:
    Funny how they were so open to it last week. I'm guessing they don't like those other little stipulations that also limit increasing rate of fire. Pathetic.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other Democrats last week introduced their own bill in the Senate to ban bump stocks that would prohibit "the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire," according to a press release.
    I don't like the "transfer" wording but I understand why it's in there.
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 8,978
    tbergs said:
    Funny how they were so open to it last week. I'm guessing they don't like those other little stipulations that also limit increasing rate of fire. Pathetic.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other Democrats last week introduced their own bill in the Senate to ban bump stocks that would prohibit "the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire," according to a press release.
    I don't like the "transfer" wording but I understand why it's in there.
    All guns and their accessories start out as legal and I'm assuming most gun owners start out as "responsible."
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,527
    edited October 13
    *Wrong quote
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,527
    Yup, don't make it illegal, just regulate it softly because everyone knows the ATF is fully funded and supported in their oversight role. Kind of like the EPA and the coal industry. There, I humored you PJPower. And Mace wonders why nothing changes?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html
    No, I've said exactly why nothing changes. It's no mystery to me.
    Neither side wants to compromise. When you have politicians like Pelosi who say they hope its a slippery slope and admit they'll take an inch if you give a mile only give motive for gun lobbyists to fight any changes.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,254
    mace1229 said:
    Yup, don't make it illegal, just regulate it softly because everyone knows the ATF is fully funded and supported in their oversight role. Kind of like the EPA and the coal industry. There, I humored you PJPower. And Mace wonders why nothing changes?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html
    No, I've said exactly why nothing changes. It's no mystery to me.
    Neither side wants to compromise. When you have politicians like Pelosi who say they hope its a slippery slope and admit they'll take an inch if you give a mile only give motive for gun lobbyists to fight any changes.
    That's baloney, the Democrats are compromising just by coming to the table with the extremists on the right.
    They are full of compromises and the right hasn't budged an inch in a generation.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,770
    Yup, don't make it illegal, just regulate it softly because everyone knows the ATF is fully funded and supported in their oversight role. Kind of like the EPA and the coal industry. There, I humored you PJPower. And Mace wonders why nothing changes?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html
    You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,770
    edited October 13
    tbergs said:
    Funny how they were so open to it last week. I'm guessing they don't like those other little stipulations that also limit increasing rate of fire. Pathetic.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other Democrats last week introduced their own bill in the Senate to ban bump stocks that would prohibit "the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire," according to a press release.
    I didn’t read the article, but am aware of the debate. What would be included in the “similar accessories” category?  I would not be in favor of anything that quacky Feinstein has touched.  She is a large reason that gun owners fear unreasonable restrictions being implemented and have an underlying distrust of Democrat created legislation on firearms.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,604
    I have fully accepted now that America is a divided nation, and always will be. doesn't help that you elected a divider in chief. but I don't think it makes a huge difference anyway. Obama was a great speaker, but even he couldn't bring the country together. 
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,186
    PJPOWER said:
    Yup, don't make it illegal, just regulate it softly because everyone knows the ATF is fully funded and supported in their oversight role. Kind of like the EPA and the coal industry. There, I humored you PJPower. And Mace wonders why nothing changes?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html
    You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  
    The quote doesn't claim that the ATF is funded by the NRA; it questions whether it is "fully funded" - i.e. whether it receives the funding to monitor what it would be asked to monitor and manage. If not, it's a purely cosmetic change that's being proposed. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 8,978
    PJPOWER said:
    Yup, don't make it illegal, just regulate it softly because everyone knows the ATF is fully funded and supported in their oversight role. Kind of like the EPA and the coal industry. There, I humored you PJPower. And Mace wonders why nothing changes?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html
    You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  
    Okay, I'll humor you and your hostile response to my two questions. Banning those two types of ammunition wouldn't have prevented any mass killings. Now explain to me why a "responsible" gun owner needs military style ammunition? I never claimed the ATF was funded by the NRA, I made a comparison of two federal agencies. Nice pivot and deflection.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,799
    PJPOWER said:
    tbergs said:
    Funny how they were so open to it last week. I'm guessing they don't like those other little stipulations that also limit increasing rate of fire. Pathetic.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other Democrats last week introduced their own bill in the Senate to ban bump stocks that would prohibit "the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire," according to a press release.
    I didn’t read the article, but am aware of the debate. What would be included in the “similar accessories” category?  I would not be in favor of anything that quacky Feinstein has touched.  She is a large reason that gun owners fear unreasonable restrictions being implemented and have an underlying distrust of Democrat created legislation on firearms.
    It is only talking about accessories that allow for the increased firing rate of the weapon. Can you explain to me why any gun needs to have the ability to increase the already set manufacturer rate of fire? This is about limiting anything besides the ability to increase kill rates, which is obviously being proposed to save human lives and that is it. People are all for the bump stocks because now they are known, but that doesn't eliminate the potential for some other accessory to be used for a similar purpose. This bill is looking to curb that from ever even being a possibility.

    Everything about you response is fear based. You talk about looking for reasonable compromise and here it is, but you still argue against it because this one bill will lead to the end of gun ownership. This is why people say the gun lobby runs congress. They allow no compromise and then act like it's the other side being ridiculous.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 12,169
    PJPOWER said:
    Yup, don't make it illegal, just regulate it softly because everyone knows the ATF is fully funded and supported in their oversight role. Kind of like the EPA and the coal industry. There, I humored you PJPower. And Mace wonders why nothing changes?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html
    You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  
    Okay, I'll humor you and your hostile response to my two questions. Banning those two types of ammunition wouldn't have prevented any mass killings. Now explain to me why a "responsible" gun owner needs military style ammunition? I never claimed the ATF was funded by the NRA, I made a comparison of two federal agencies. Nice pivot and deflection.
    Is there any pending Canadian legislation banning military weapons or ammunition?  I mean if I lived in Canada I could buy a svt 40 for cheap!  The 7.62x45r is one nasty bullet!
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,770
    tbergs said:
    PJPOWER said:
    tbergs said:
    Funny how they were so open to it last week. I'm guessing they don't like those other little stipulations that also limit increasing rate of fire. Pathetic.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other Democrats last week introduced their own bill in the Senate to ban bump stocks that would prohibit "the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire," according to a press release.
    I didn’t read the article, but am aware of the debate. What would be included in the “similar accessories” category?  I would not be in favor of anything that quacky Feinstein has touched.  She is a large reason that gun owners fear unreasonable restrictions being implemented and have an underlying distrust of Democrat created legislation on firearms.
    It is only talking about accessories that allow for the increased firing rate of the weapon. Can you explain to me why any gun needs to have the ability to increase the already set manufacturer rate of fire? This is about limiting anything besides the ability to increase kill rates, which is obviously being proposed to save human lives and that is it. People are all for the bump stocks because now they are known, but that doesn't eliminate the potential for some other accessory to be used for a similar purpose. This bill is looking to curb that from ever even being a possibility.

    Everything about you response is fear based. You talk about looking for reasonable compromise and here it is, but you still argue against it because this one bill will lead to the end of gun ownership. This is why people say the gun lobby runs congress. They allow no compromise and then act like it's the other side being ridiculous.
    I was actually being honest.  What other accessories increase the rate of fire?  Would after market triggers increase the rate of fire?  Would muzzle breaks increase the rate of fire?  It just seems like it is very vague on what else that would encompass.  I do fear people like Feinstein creating any sort of legislation just like legislation from Trump would be feared.  They are both insane blowhards.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,770
    edited October 13

    PJPOWER said:
    Yup, don't make it illegal, just regulate it softly because everyone knows the ATF is fully funded and supported in their oversight role. Kind of like the EPA and the coal industry. There, I humored you PJPower. And Mace wonders why nothing changes?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html
    You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  
    Okay, I'll humor you and your hostile response to my two questions. Banning those two types of ammunition wouldn't have prevented any mass killings. Now explain to me why a "responsible" gun owner needs military style ammunition? I never claimed the ATF was funded by the NRA, I made a comparison of two federal agencies. Nice pivot and deflection.
    “Military style ammunition”?  Most military ammunition is the same cheap ammunition that is used for target practice and probably is less deadly than many of the sofisticated hunting rounds.  In fact, most hunting rounds would probably violate the acceptable types of of bullets that can be used by military personnel.  I have a problem with terms like “military style ammunition”.  I do not have a problem with banning tracer rounds or bump stocks, but am not on board with a sweeping “military style” anything ban.  That term is thrown out there by politicians and nutters that have no idea what they are talking about...or by people that are being purposefully deceptive.  All of the lying and deception by eccentrics is why nothing is ever accomplished.  
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,527
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    Yup, don't make it illegal, just regulate it softly because everyone knows the ATF is fully funded and supported in their oversight role. Kind of like the EPA and the coal industry. There, I humored you PJPower. And Mace wonders why nothing changes?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html
    No, I've said exactly why nothing changes. It's no mystery to me.
    Neither side wants to compromise. When you have politicians like Pelosi who say they hope its a slippery slope and admit they'll take an inch if you give a mile only give motive for gun lobbyists to fight any changes.
    That's baloney, the Democrats are compromising just by coming to the table with the extremists on the right.
    They are full of compromises and the right hasn't budged an inch in a generation.
    I didn't say I agree with it, but there are enough democrats who voice their opinions enough to fuel the anti-gun control crowd.
    Just like there are plenty of gun owners and politicians who do support gun control, but there's enough out there who want nothing and those are the ones you hear from the most.
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 12,169
    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:
    Yup, don't make it illegal, just regulate it softly because everyone knows the ATF is fully funded and supported in their oversight role. Kind of like the EPA and the coal industry. There, I humored you PJPower. And Mace wonders why nothing changes?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html
    You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  
    Okay, I'll humor you and your hostile response to my two questions. Banning those two types of ammunition wouldn't have prevented any mass killings. Now explain to me why a "responsible" gun owner needs military style ammunition? I never claimed the ATF was funded by the NRA, I made a comparison of two federal agencies. Nice pivot and deflection.
    “Military style ammunition”?  Most military ammunition is the same cheap ammunition that is used for target practice and probably is less deadly than many of the sofisticated hunting rounds.  In fact, most hunting rounds would probably violate the acceptable types of of bullets that can be used by military personnel.  I have a problem with terms like “military style ammunition”.  I do not have a problem with banning tracer rounds or bump stocks, but am not on board with a sweeping “military style” anything ban.  That term is thrown out there by politicians and nutters that have no idea what they are talking about...or by people that are being purposefully deceptive.  All of the lying and deception by eccentrics is why nothing is ever accomplished.  
    Ammo that the U.S. military uses that I also use:
    12 gauge 
    30.06
    308
    5.56/.223 
    9mm 
    45
    Way too broad of a definition.  I have no problem banning tracer or incidinary rounds.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,770
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:
    Yup, don't make it illegal, just regulate it softly because everyone knows the ATF is fully funded and supported in their oversight role. Kind of like the EPA and the coal industry. There, I humored you PJPower. And Mace wonders why nothing changes?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html
    You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  
    Okay, I'll humor you and your hostile response to my two questions. Banning those two types of ammunition wouldn't have prevented any mass killings. Now explain to me why a "responsible" gun owner needs military style ammunition? I never claimed the ATF was funded by the NRA, I made a comparison of two federal agencies. Nice pivot and deflection.
    “Military style ammunition”?  Most military ammunition is the same cheap ammunition that is used for target practice and probably is less deadly than many of the sofisticated hunting rounds.  In fact, most hunting rounds would probably violate the acceptable types of of bullets that can be used by military personnel.  I have a problem with terms like “military style ammunition”.  I do not have a problem with banning tracer rounds or bump stocks, but am not on board with a sweeping “military style” anything ban.  That term is thrown out there by politicians and nutters that have no idea what they are talking about...or by people that are being purposefully deceptive.  All of the lying and deception by eccentrics is why nothing is ever accomplished.  
    Ammo that the U.S. military uses that I also use:
    12 gauge 
    30.06
    308
    5.56/.223 
    9mm 
    45
    Way too broad of a definition.  I have no problem banning tracer or incidinary rounds.
    Sounds like a compromise if I have ever heard one :)
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 8,978
    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:
    Yup, don't make it illegal, just regulate it softly because everyone knows the ATF is fully funded and supported in their oversight role. Kind of like the EPA and the coal industry. There, I humored you PJPower. And Mace wonders why nothing changes?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html
    You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  
    Okay, I'll humor you and your hostile response to my two questions. Banning those two types of ammunition wouldn't have prevented any mass killings. Now explain to me why a "responsible" gun owner needs military style ammunition? I never claimed the ATF was funded by the NRA, I made a comparison of two federal agencies. Nice pivot and deflection.
    “Military style ammunition”?  Most military ammunition is the same cheap ammunition that is used for target practice and probably is less deadly than many of the sofisticated hunting rounds.  In fact, most hunting rounds would probably violate the acceptable types of of bullets that can be used by military personnel.  I have a problem with terms like “military style ammunition”.  I do not have a problem with banning tracer rounds or bump stocks, but am not on board with a sweeping “military style” anything ban.  That term is thrown out there by politicians and nutters that have no idea what they are talking about...or by people that are being purposefully deceptive.  All of the lying and deception by eccentrics is why nothing is ever accomplished.  

    If you go back to my original question, why the need for incendiary and tracer rounds? For public consumption? Is this the slippery slope you're so afraid of? Do try to keep the conversation in context, its like arguing that the use of the term magazine versus clip when everyone knows what we're talking about. But hey, 1 out of 100 and 1 out of 435 is many, so there is that. 
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,770
    edited October 13
    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:
    Yup, don't make it illegal, just regulate it softly because everyone knows the ATF is fully funded and supported in their oversight role. Kind of like the EPA and the coal industry. There, I humored you PJPower. And Mace wonders why nothing changes?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html
    You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  
    Okay, I'll humor you and your hostile response to my two questions. Banning those two types of ammunition wouldn't have prevented any mass killings. Now explain to me why a "responsible" gun owner needs military style ammunition? I never claimed the ATF was funded by the NRA, I made a comparison of two federal agencies. Nice pivot and deflection.
    “Military style ammunition”?  Most military ammunition is the same cheap ammunition that is used for target practice and probably is less deadly than many of the sofisticated hunting rounds.  In fact, most hunting rounds would probably violate the acceptable types of of bullets that can be used by military personnel.  I have a problem with terms like “military style ammunition”.  I do not have a problem with banning tracer rounds or bump stocks, but am not on board with a sweeping “military style” anything ban.  That term is thrown out there by politicians and nutters that have no idea what they are talking about...or by people that are being purposefully deceptive.  All of the lying and deception by eccentrics is why nothing is ever accomplished.  

    If you go back to my original question, why the need for incendiary and tracer rounds? For public consumption? Is this the slippery slope you're so afraid of? Do try to keep the conversation in context, its like arguing that the use of the term magazine versus clip when everyone knows what we're talking about. But hey, 1 out of 100 and 1 out of 435 is many, so there is that. 
    I have said multiple times that there is no need for incendiary or tracer rounds...do you even read?  Make them illegal to own or purchase, no one is really going to care.  Make the law specifically say, “It is illegal to sell, purchase, own incendiary or tracer ammunition”.  The slippery slope would be if the law stated “all military style” anything.  That, I would not be in support of.  
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,527
    I have fully accepted now that America is a divided nation, and always will be. doesn't help that you elected a divider in chief. but I don't think it makes a huge difference anyway. Obama was a great speaker, but even he couldn't bring the country together. 
    Obama did a lot of good things. One thing he didn't do was unite. He had a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth and make situations about race when they weren't. Its my belief BLM grew to power under him because of his actions.
    Even that beer summons thing is a perfect example of that. A complete non-issue turned into nationwide race card topic.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,604
    mace1229 said:
    I have fully accepted now that America is a divided nation, and always will be. doesn't help that you elected a divider in chief. but I don't think it makes a huge difference anyway. Obama was a great speaker, but even he couldn't bring the country together. 
    Obama did a lot of good things. One thing he didn't do was unite. He had a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth and make situations about race when they weren't. Its my belief BLM grew to power under him because of his actions.
    Even that beer summons thing is a perfect example of that. A complete non-issue turned into nationwide race card topic.
    what did he make about race that wasn't? besides the comments he made about the Gates arrest that he later regretted. but how was the Gates arrest a non-issue? do you really believe that a white man would have been arrested "breaking into" his own home?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,799
    mace1229 said:
    I have fully accepted now that America is a divided nation, and always will be. doesn't help that you elected a divider in chief. but I don't think it makes a huge difference anyway. Obama was a great speaker, but even he couldn't bring the country together. 
    Obama did a lot of good things. One thing he didn't do was unite. He had a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth and make situations about race when they weren't. Its my belief BLM grew to power under him because of his actions.
    Even that beer summons thing is a perfect example of that. A complete non-issue turned into nationwide race card topic.
    What power do they have? My understanding is that they organized around shootings involving black men. I think they lack a true leader, but is there anything wrong with a group trying to increase awareness and demand change around racial inequity? Your comment is phrased in such a way that it seems you view them as completely negative and unnecessary.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • dignindignin Posts: 5,198
    edited October 13
    mace1229 said:
    I have fully accepted now that America is a divided nation, and always will be. doesn't help that you elected a divider in chief. but I don't think it makes a huge difference anyway. Obama was a great speaker, but even he couldn't bring the country together. 
    Obama did a lot of good things. One thing he didn't do was unite. He had a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth and make situations about race when they weren't. Its my belief BLM grew to power under him because of his actions.
    Even that beer summons thing is a perfect example of that. A complete non-issue turned into nationwide race card topic.
    Forgive me if I take that with a grain of salt when it comes from a guy who voted for Trump, who is a misogynist, a sexual predator and a racist among many other things. 

    But let's talk about Obama.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,527
    tbergs said:
    mace1229 said:
    I have fully accepted now that America is a divided nation, and always will be. doesn't help that you elected a divider in chief. but I don't think it makes a huge difference anyway. Obama was a great speaker, but even he couldn't bring the country together. 
    Obama did a lot of good things. One thing he didn't do was unite. He had a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth and make situations about race when they weren't. Its my belief BLM grew to power under him because of his actions.
    Even that beer summons thing is a perfect example of that. A complete non-issue turned into nationwide race card topic.
    What power do they have? My understanding is that they organized around shootings involving black men. I think they lack a true leader, but is there anything wrong with a group trying to increase awareness and demand change around racial inequity? Your comment is phrased in such a way that it seems you view them as completely negative and unnecessary.
    Power was not the correct word, "popularity" would have been better. 
    As far as HFDs question here are just a couple exzmples at the top of my head.
    The Beer Summons: A neighbor called the cops because he thought someone was breaking into his neighbors house. Turns out it was his house but just got locked out, so he refused to cooperate with police when they arrived. Of course police were suspicious, he refused to cooperate. Obama heavily criticized the police without knowing any of the facts, and his way of apologize without admitting fault was to invite the police chief over for beer. 
    He consistantly made comments with Trevon Martin, Michael Brown and every other high profile case before knowing any of the details.
    Now I'm not convinced Mark Zimmerman is completely innocent, but Trevon wasn;t that 12-year-old kid the media kept posting a picture of either, and he fell right into that play with his comments that if he had a son it would the Trevon.
    Doesn't even comment on Kate Steinle's murder which was nationwide news, but will comment on every police shooting involving a black man before any details are even known.
    I'm not accusing him of racism or anything. Just that I personally don't think he handled race relations well. And the fact they are the worst they've been since the 60s during our first black president (before Trump) seems to justify that comment.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,604
    mace1229 said:
    tbergs said:
    mace1229 said:
    I have fully accepted now that America is a divided nation, and always will be. doesn't help that you elected a divider in chief. but I don't think it makes a huge difference anyway. Obama was a great speaker, but even he couldn't bring the country together. 
    Obama did a lot of good things. One thing he didn't do was unite. He had a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth and make situations about race when they weren't. Its my belief BLM grew to power under him because of his actions.
    Even that beer summons thing is a perfect example of that. A complete non-issue turned into nationwide race card topic.
    What power do they have? My understanding is that they organized around shootings involving black men. I think they lack a true leader, but is there anything wrong with a group trying to increase awareness and demand change around racial inequity? Your comment is phrased in such a way that it seems you view them as completely negative and unnecessary.
    Power was not the correct word, "popularity" would have been better. 
    As far as HFDs question here are just a couple exzmples at the top of my head.
    The Beer Summons: A neighbor called the cops because he thought someone was breaking into his neighbors house. Turns out it was his house but just got locked out, so he refused to cooperate with police when they arrived. Of course police were suspicious, he refused to cooperate. Obama heavily criticized the police without knowing any of the facts, and his way of apologize without admitting fault was to invite the police chief over for beer. 
    He consistantly made comments with Trevon Martin, Michael Brown and every other high profile case before knowing any of the details.
    Now I'm not convinced Mark Zimmerman is completely innocent, but Trevon wasn;t that 12-year-old kid the media kept posting a picture of either, and he fell right into that play with his comments that if he had a son it would the Trevon.
    Doesn't even comment on Kate Steinle's murder which was nationwide news, but will comment on every police shooting involving a black man before any details are even known.
    I'm not accusing him of racism or anything. Just that I personally don't think he handled race relations well. And the fact they are the worst they've been since the 60s during our first black president (before Trump) seems to justify that comment.
    his direct quote about the Gates case:
    "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.

    when I have more time I'll have to look up his comments on those other cases. But all I could find about Trayvon was his comments after Zimmerman was acquitted. 

    I think race relations got worse because you had 8 years of racists looking at the tv and seeing everything they hate in the world as their president. it empowered the black community to rise up and stop taking shit, and things boiled over. 

    racists didn't like having a black president who called america what it was: an historically and currently racist country. 

    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • mace1229 said:
    I have fully accepted now that America is a divided nation, and always will be. doesn't help that you elected a divider in chief. but I don't think it makes a huge difference anyway. Obama was a great speaker, but even he couldn't bring the country together. 
    Obama did a lot of good things. One thing he didn't do was unite. He had a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth and make situations about race when they weren't. Its my belief BLM grew to power under him because of his actions.
    Even that beer summons thing is a perfect example of that. A complete non-issue turned into nationwide race card topic.
    It's tough... uniting a diverse country that features, for example, a significant sector of the population that is well educated, capable of critical thought, and possesses empathy and concern for others... with a significant sector of the population that has no need for a dental plan, doesn't shower, and thinks minority people are only fit for the fields.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,527
    mace1229 said:
    tbergs said:
    mace1229 said:
    I have fully accepted now that America is a divided nation, and always will be. doesn't help that you elected a divider in chief. but I don't think it makes a huge difference anyway. Obama was a great speaker, but even he couldn't bring the country together. 
    Obama did a lot of good things. One thing he didn't do was unite. He had a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth and make situations about race when they weren't. Its my belief BLM grew to power under him because of his actions.
    Even that beer summons thing is a perfect example of that. A complete non-issue turned into nationwide race card topic.
    What power do they have? My understanding is that they organized around shootings involving black men. I think they lack a true leader, but is there anything wrong with a group trying to increase awareness and demand change around racial inequity? Your comment is phrased in such a way that it seems you view them as completely negative and unnecessary.
    Power was not the correct word, "popularity" would have been better. 
    As far as HFDs question here are just a couple exzmples at the top of my head.
    The Beer Summons: A neighbor called the cops because he thought someone was breaking into his neighbors house. Turns out it was his house but just got locked out, so he refused to cooperate with police when they arrived. Of course police were suspicious, he refused to cooperate. Obama heavily criticized the police without knowing any of the facts, and his way of apologize without admitting fault was to invite the police chief over for beer. 
    He consistantly made comments with Trevon Martin, Michael Brown and every other high profile case before knowing any of the details.
    Now I'm not convinced Mark Zimmerman is completely innocent, but Trevon wasn;t that 12-year-old kid the media kept posting a picture of either, and he fell right into that play with his comments that if he had a son it would the Trevon.
    Doesn't even comment on Kate Steinle's murder which was nationwide news, but will comment on every police shooting involving a black man before any details are even known.
    I'm not accusing him of racism or anything. Just that I personally don't think he handled race relations well. And the fact they are the worst they've been since the 60s during our first black president (before Trump) seems to justify that comment.
    his direct quote about the Gates case:
    "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.

    when I have more time I'll have to look up his comments on those other cases. But all I could find about Trayvon was his comments after Zimmerman was acquitted. 

    I think race relations got worse because you had 8 years of racists looking at the tv and seeing everything they hate in the world as their president. it empowered the black community to rise up and stop taking shit, and things boiled over. 

    racists didn't like having a black president who called america what it was: an historically and currently racist country. 

    Thats probably true, although I just don't think true racists make up a significant portion of the population. Yes there are some, but in most parts of the country they are uncommon.
    A big factor was the expectation that race problems would be solved just by having a black president to begin with, And when that didnt automatically happen, tensions got worse among those relationships. 
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,604
    I have no idea who had that expectation. 
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 8,978
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    tbergs said:
    mace1229 said:
    I have fully accepted now that America is a divided nation, and always will be. doesn't help that you elected a divider in chief. but I don't think it makes a huge difference anyway. Obama was a great speaker, but even he couldn't bring the country together. 
    Obama did a lot of good things. One thing he didn't do was unite. He had a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth and make situations about race when they weren't. Its my belief BLM grew to power under him because of his actions.
    Even that beer summons thing is a perfect example of that. A complete non-issue turned into nationwide race card topic.
    What power do they have? My understanding is that they organized around shootings involving black men. I think they lack a true leader, but is there anything wrong with a group trying to increase awareness and demand change around racial inequity? Your comment is phrased in such a way that it seems you view them as completely negative and unnecessary.
    Power was not the correct word, "popularity" would have been better. 
    As far as HFDs question here are just a couple exzmples at the top of my head.
    The Beer Summons: A neighbor called the cops because he thought someone was breaking into his neighbors house. Turns out it was his house but just got locked out, so he refused to cooperate with police when they arrived. Of course police were suspicious, he refused to cooperate. Obama heavily criticized the police without knowing any of the facts, and his way of apologize without admitting fault was to invite the police chief over for beer. 
    He consistantly made comments with Trevon Martin, Michael Brown and every other high profile case before knowing any of the details.
    Now I'm not convinced Mark Zimmerman is completely innocent, but Trevon wasn;t that 12-year-old kid the media kept posting a picture of either, and he fell right into that play with his comments that if he had a son it would the Trevon.
    Doesn't even comment on Kate Steinle's murder which was nationwide news, but will comment on every police shooting involving a black man before any details are even known.
    I'm not accusing him of racism or anything. Just that I personally don't think he handled race relations well. And the fact they are the worst they've been since the 60s during our first black president (before Trump) seems to justify that comment.
    his direct quote about the Gates case:
    "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.

    when I have more time I'll have to look up his comments on those other cases. But all I could find about Trayvon was his comments after Zimmerman was acquitted. 

    I think race relations got worse because you had 8 years of racists looking at the tv and seeing everything they hate in the world as their president. it empowered the black community to rise up and stop taking shit, and things boiled over. 

    racists didn't like having a black president who called america what it was: an historically and currently racist country. 

    Thats probably true, although I just don't think true racists make up a significant portion of the population. Yes there are some, but in most parts of the country they are uncommon.
    A big factor was the expectation that race problems would be solved just by having a black president to begin with, And when that didnt automatically happen, tensions got worse among those relationships. 
    What country are you living in?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
Sign In or Register to comment.