America's Gun Violence

1227228230232233602

Comments

  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,821
    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 is a "true racist"? 

    And who ever thought that race relations would be "solved" by the election of one black president? Given the fact that racism has been alive and well for hundreds of years in this country, that's absurd. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956
    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?
    America
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956
    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 is a "true racist"? 

    And who ever thought that race relations would be "solved" by the election of one black president? Given the fact that racism has been alive and well for hundreds of years in this country, that's absurd. 
    I can't be the only to hear numerous people over and over again say we don't have a race problem and use who was living in the whote house as proof?
    I'm not saying I agreed, but there were a lot of folks who thought there wasn't as issue because of who lived in the white house.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,821
    mace1229 said:
    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 is a "true racist"? 

    And who ever thought that race relations would be "solved" by the election of one black president? Given the fact that racism has been alive and well for hundreds of years in this country, that's absurd. 
    I can't be the only to hear numerous people over and over again say we don't have a race problem and use who was living in the whote house as proof?
    I'm not saying I agreed, but there were a lot of folks who thought there wasn't as issue because of who lived in the white house.

    Ah. 

    Those people were not saying that a race problem was "solved" by having a black man elected to the office of POTUS. Those people were saying there never was a race problem, and the election of said POTUS was proof of that premise. Two very different things. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mace1229 said:
    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?
    America
    Your view of America is vastly different from mine as it relates to race relations.
     
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956
    edited October 2017
    mace1229 said:
    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?
    America
    Your view of America is vastly different from mine as it relates to race relations.
     
    It may be. I've spent most of my life living or working in areas where the minorities were by far the majority. That probably is completely different than someone whose main experiences are in the deep south or many other places. I'm used to (or was) not seeing another white person on the way to work or when I shopped in the grocery store.
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 28,258
    I visit West Virginia a couple of times a yr and believe me there's Racism alive & kicking down there or go down to gainsville plenty of there too ...
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via Chicago Posts: 6,786
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    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?
    America
    Your view of America is vastly different from mine as it relates to race relations.
     
    It may be. I've spent most of my life living or working in areas where the minorities were by far the majority. That probably is completely different than someone whose main experiences are in the deep south or many other places. I'm used to (or was) not seeing another white person on the way to work or when I shopped in the grocery store.


    ...um....
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956
    CM189191 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    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?
    America
    Your view of America is vastly different from mine as it relates to race relations.
     
    It may be. I've spent most of my life living or working in areas where the minorities were by far the majority. That probably is completely different than someone whose main experiences are in the deep south or many other places. I'm used to (or was) not seeing another white person on the way to work or when I shopped in the grocery store.


    ...um....
    not sure how that is a response to my comment about minorities?
    That graph is about blacks, and doesnt even include the largest group of minorities in our country. And seeing how I was talking about minorities, I am having trouble seeing the relationship between your response and my comment.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956
    All my comment was is that for the majority of my life I have lived in an area with mostly minorities.
    I lived in a hispanic neighborhood of LA, worked in south-central LA with almost no other whites in the neighborhood or my work. Based on that experience I saw very little or no racism, but that very well may be because there were not other white people around to be racist. So I also said in other parts of the country I recognize it may be a bigger factor, but it hasn't been in my experience.
    Your graph just shows more blacks like in the south, I think we all already knew that.
  • Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

    Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956

    Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

    Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

    Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
    But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
     But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.
  • Thoughts_ArriveThoughts_Arrive Melbourne, Australia Posts: 15,165
    Happiness is a warm gun, bang bang, shoot shoot.
    Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
  • mace1229 said:

    Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

    Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

    Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
    But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
     But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.
    Another factless rambling statement from a once a year "enthusiast." Can you point to the legislation that was introduced that banned guns? In any legislative body in the US? Yet I post an actual attempt by your side, the side you claim is "rational" and misunderstood and deflect to how reasonable you are in your one world view because it's not your experience. 2 of 535 equals "many," I get that but you have yet to link to proposed or introduced legislation. Seeing how you only go shooting once a year, you'd be okay with your gun and ammo being stored, by law, at the range?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 27,739
    mace1229 said:

    Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

    Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

    Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
    But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
     But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.
    Another factless rambling statement from a once a year "enthusiast." Can you point to the legislation that was introduced that banned guns? In any legislative body in the US? Yet I post an actual attempt by your side, the side you claim is "rational" and misunderstood and deflect to how reasonable you are in your one world view because it's not your experience. 2 of 535 equals "many," I get that but you have yet to link to proposed or introduced legislation. Seeing how you only go shooting once a year, you'd be okay with your gun and ammo being stored,

    Not all guns but perhaps semi automatic ones:

    new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

    The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

    “It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

    The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

    he proposal also creates significant implementation challenges, since it contains zero grandfather provisions for existing gun owners or manufacturers. The bill also fails to provide any means by which existing gun owners and manufacturers could turn in their weapons to federal authorities to avoid running afoul of the bill’s effective ban on the possession of any semi-automatic firearms or parts. Absent a statutory federal gun buyback, which is not included in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, it does not appear that current law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers would have any way to abide by the constraints of the law in good faith absent a massive federal confiscation effort.

    The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it opposed the Curbelo/Moulton proposal. In a separate statement, the organization said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives (ATF) already had the legal authority necessary to ban bump stocks and that additional legislation was unnecessary. The group noted that bump stocks were originally approved by the Obama administration in 2010.

    It is unclear at this time whether Curbelo and Moulton intended to propose such an expansive ban on all semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Also unknown is why the authors of the proposal chose to target rates of fire across all weapons instead of specifically banning bump stocks themselves, which consist of a single grip and stock assembly that is designed to rock a rifle back and forth against an individual’s finger in order to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle weapon.

    Neither Curbelo’s nor Moulton’s office responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification on the design and intent of their gun control proposal.


    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo Face Posts: 6,499
    mcgruff10 said:
    mace1229 said:

    Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

    Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

    Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
    But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
     But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.
    Another factless rambling statement from a once a year "enthusiast." Can you point to the legislation that was introduced that banned guns? In any legislative body in the US? Yet I post an actual attempt by your side, the side you claim is "rational" and misunderstood and deflect to how reasonable you are in your one world view because it's not your experience. 2 of 535 equals "many," I get that but you have yet to link to proposed or introduced legislation. Seeing how you only go shooting once a year, you'd be okay with your gun and ammo being stored,

    Not all guns but perhaps semi automatic ones:

    new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

    The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

    “It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

    The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

    he proposal also creates significant implementation challenges, since it contains zero grandfather provisions for existing gun owners or manufacturers. The bill also fails to provide any means by which existing gun owners and manufacturers could turn in their weapons to federal authorities to avoid running afoul of the bill’s effective ban on the possession of any semi-automatic firearms or parts. Absent a statutory federal gun buyback, which is not included in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, it does not appear that current law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers would have any way to abide by the constraints of the law in good faith absent a massive federal confiscation effort.

    The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it opposed the Curbelo/Moulton proposal. In a separate statement, the organization said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives (ATF) already had the legal authority necessary to ban bump stocks and that additional legislation was unnecessary. The group noted that bump stocks were originally approved by the Obama administration in 2010.

    It is unclear at this time whether Curbelo and Moulton intended to propose such an expansive ban on all semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Also unknown is why the authors of the proposal chose to target rates of fire across all weapons instead of specifically banning bump stocks themselves, which consist of a single grip and stock assembly that is designed to rock a rifle back and forth against an individual’s finger in order to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle weapon.

    Neither Curbelo’s nor Moulton’s office responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification on the design and intent of their gun control proposal.


    So it is either a sneaky/divisive bill or just a poorly written one.  As much as I hate to say it, with the conversations that have transpired as of late, I am getting closer and closer to the “don’t give an inch” platform especially when it comes to democratic created bills.  “Change you can believe in”...
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo Face Posts: 6,499
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 27,739
    PJPOWER said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mace1229 said:

    Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

    Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

    Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
    But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
     But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.
    Another factless rambling statement from a once a year "enthusiast." Can you point to the legislation that was introduced that banned guns? In any legislative body in the US? Yet I post an actual attempt by your side, the side you claim is "rational" and misunderstood and deflect to how reasonable you are in your one world view because it's not your experience. 2 of 535 equals "many," I get that but you have yet to link to proposed or introduced legislation. Seeing how you only go shooting once a year, you'd be okay with your gun and ammo being stored,

    Not all guns but perhaps semi automatic ones:

    new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

    The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

    “It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

    The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

    he proposal also creates significant implementation challenges, since it contains zero grandfather provisions for existing gun owners or manufacturers. The bill also fails to provide any means by which existing gun owners and manufacturers could turn in their weapons to federal authorities to avoid running afoul of the bill’s effective ban on the possession of any semi-automatic firearms or parts. Absent a statutory federal gun buyback, which is not included in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, it does not appear that current law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers would have any way to abide by the constraints of the law in good faith absent a massive federal confiscation effort.

    The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it opposed the Curbelo/Moulton proposal. In a separate statement, the organization said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives (ATF) already had the legal authority necessary to ban bump stocks and that additional legislation was unnecessary. The group noted that bump stocks were originally approved by the Obama administration in 2010.

    It is unclear at this time whether Curbelo and Moulton intended to propose such an expansive ban on all semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Also unknown is why the authors of the proposal chose to target rates of fire across all weapons instead of specifically banning bump stocks themselves, which consist of a single grip and stock assembly that is designed to rock a rifle back and forth against an individual’s finger in order to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle weapon.

    Neither Curbelo’s nor Moulton’s office responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification on the design and intent of their gun control proposal.


    So it is either a sneaky/divisive bill or just a poorly written one.  As much as I hate to say it, with the conversations that have transpired as of late, I am getting closer and closer to the “don’t give an inch” platform especially when it comes to democratic created bills.  “Change you can believe in”...
    I would hope it is just a poorly written one but who the heck knows.  And that's why I pay my NRA dues; I'm thinking their lawyers analyzed it and came to this this conclusion.  
    i had no clue that the ATF can just ban bump stocks, why don't they?  
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo Face Posts: 6,499
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mace1229 said:

    Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

    Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

    Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
    But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
     But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.
    Another factless rambling statement from a once a year "enthusiast." Can you point to the legislation that was introduced that banned guns? In any legislative body in the US? Yet I post an actual attempt by your side, the side you claim is "rational" and misunderstood and deflect to how reasonable you are in your one world view because it's not your experience. 2 of 535 equals "many," I get that but you have yet to link to proposed or introduced legislation. Seeing how you only go shooting once a year, you'd be okay with your gun and ammo being stored,

    Not all guns but perhaps semi automatic ones:

    new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

    The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

    “It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

    The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

    he proposal also creates significant implementation challenges, since it contains zero grandfather provisions for existing gun owners or manufacturers. The bill also fails to provide any means by which existing gun owners and manufacturers could turn in their weapons to federal authorities to avoid running afoul of the bill’s effective ban on the possession of any semi-automatic firearms or parts. Absent a statutory federal gun buyback, which is not included in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, it does not appear that current law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers would have any way to abide by the constraints of the law in good faith absent a massive federal confiscation effort.

    The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it opposed the Curbelo/Moulton proposal. In a separate statement, the organization said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives (ATF) already had the legal authority necessary to ban bump stocks and that additional legislation was unnecessary. The group noted that bump stocks were originally approved by the Obama administration in 2010.

    It is unclear at this time whether Curbelo and Moulton intended to propose such an expansive ban on all semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Also unknown is why the authors of the proposal chose to target rates of fire across all weapons instead of specifically banning bump stocks themselves, which consist of a single grip and stock assembly that is designed to rock a rifle back and forth against an individual’s finger in order to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle weapon.

    Neither Curbelo’s nor Moulton’s office responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification on the design and intent of their gun control proposal.


    So it is either a sneaky/divisive bill or just a poorly written one.  As much as I hate to say it, with the conversations that have transpired as of late, I am getting closer and closer to the “don’t give an inch” platform especially when it comes to democratic created bills.  “Change you can believe in”...
    I would hope it is just a poorly written one but who the heck knows.  And that's why I pay my NRA dues; I'm thinking their lawyers analyzed it and came to this this conclusion.  
    i had no clue that the ATF can just ban bump stocks, why don't they?  
    Yep, let me know if you hear of a cheap lifetime membership coming around like has happened in the past :)
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 27,739
    PJPOWER said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mace1229 said:

    Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

    Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

    Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
    But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
     But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.
    Another factless rambling statement from a once a year "enthusiast." Can you point to the legislation that was introduced that banned guns? In any legislative body in the US? Yet I post an actual attempt by your side, the side you claim is "rational" and misunderstood and deflect to how reasonable you are in your one world view because it's not your experience. 2 of 535 equals "many," I get that but you have yet to link to proposed or introduced legislation. Seeing how you only go shooting once a year, you'd be okay with your gun and ammo being stored,

    Not all guns but perhaps semi automatic ones:

    new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

    The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

    “It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

    The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

    he proposal also creates significant implementation challenges, since it contains zero grandfather provisions for existing gun owners or manufacturers. The bill also fails to provide any means by which existing gun owners and manufacturers could turn in their weapons to federal authorities to avoid running afoul of the bill’s effective ban on the possession of any semi-automatic firearms or parts. Absent a statutory federal gun buyback, which is not included in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, it does not appear that current law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers would have any way to abide by the constraints of the law in good faith absent a massive federal confiscation effort.

    The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it opposed the Curbelo/Moulton proposal. In a separate statement, the organization said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives (ATF) already had the legal authority necessary to ban bump stocks and that additional legislation was unnecessary. The group noted that bump stocks were originally approved by the Obama administration in 2010.

    It is unclear at this time whether Curbelo and Moulton intended to propose such an expansive ban on all semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Also unknown is why the authors of the proposal chose to target rates of fire across all weapons instead of specifically banning bump stocks themselves, which consist of a single grip and stock assembly that is designed to rock a rifle back and forth against an individual’s finger in order to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle weapon.

    Neither Curbelo’s nor Moulton’s office responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification on the design and intent of their gun control proposal.


    So it is either a sneaky/divisive bill or just a poorly written one.  As much as I hate to say it, with the conversations that have transpired as of late, I am getting closer and closer to the “don’t give an inch” platform especially when it comes to democratic created bills.  “Change you can believe in”...
    I would hope it is just a poorly written one but who the heck knows.  And that's why I pay my NRA dues; I'm thinking their lawyers analyzed it and came to this this conclusion.  
    i had no clue that the ATF can just ban bump stocks, why don't they?  
    Yep, let me know if you hear of a cheap lifetime membership coming around like has happened in the past :)
    i would say that is an example of you give an inch they take a mile.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,821
    PJPOWER said:
    Why would you put so much weight on an opinion piece by someone who isn't an elected official; who is, in fact, a media guy? What's that got to do with any actual party policy? You do because it suits the position you believe all democrats hold. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mcgruff10 said:
    mace1229 said:

    Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

    Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

    Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
    But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
     But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.
    Another factless rambling statement from a once a year "enthusiast." Can you point to the legislation that was introduced that banned guns? In any legislative body in the US? Yet I post an actual attempt by your side, the side you claim is "rational" and misunderstood and deflect to how reasonable you are in your one world view because it's not your experience. 2 of 535 equals "many," I get that but you have yet to link to proposed or introduced legislation. Seeing how you only go shooting once a year, you'd be okay with your gun and ammo being stored,

    Not all guns but perhaps semi automatic ones:

    new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

    The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

    “It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

    The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

    he proposal also creates significant implementation challenges, since it contains zero grandfather provisions for existing gun owners or manufacturers. The bill also fails to provide any means by which existing gun owners and manufacturers could turn in their weapons to federal authorities to avoid running afoul of the bill’s effective ban on the possession of any semi-automatic firearms or parts. Absent a statutory federal gun buyback, which is not included in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, it does not appear that current law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers would have any way to abide by the constraints of the law in good faith absent a massive federal confiscation effort.

    The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it opposed the Curbelo/Moulton proposal. In a separate statement, the organization said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives (ATF) already had the legal authority necessary to ban bump stocks and that additional legislation was unnecessary. The group noted that bump stocks were originally approved by the Obama administration in 2010.

    It is unclear at this time whether Curbelo and Moulton intended to propose such an expansive ban on all semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Also unknown is why the authors of the proposal chose to target rates of fire across all weapons instead of specifically banning bump stocks themselves, which consist of a single grip and stock assembly that is designed to rock a rifle back and forth against an individual’s finger in order to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle weapon.

    Neither Curbelo’s nor Moulton’s office responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification on the design and intent of their gun control proposal.


    Link?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • 09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 27,739
    edited October 2017
    Experts beg to differ.  
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,303
    PJPOWER said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mace1229 said:

    Yea, sure, both sides are the same. Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced. Yet on the other side we have this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/13/angered-by-gun-control-this-lawmaker-drafted-a-bill-to-require-licenses-for-journalists/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_fix-journalists-420pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.2920f99c6595

    Do you think he knows the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment? Oh, the Shangra La of Indianer, that explains it.

    Not sure what you want by "Please reference the bill that banned guns that was introduced.."
    But i recognize many pro-gun advocates are unwilling to compromise and work with.
     But if you cant recognize the same problems on the other side when I say I am for more gun control and go target shooting less than once a year and that is followed by being accused of having a gun fetish and being told to join the military then there really is no point in furthering this conversation. You have pretty much proven my point, unfortunately you will never see it.
    Another factless rambling statement from a once a year "enthusiast." Can you point to the legislation that was introduced that banned guns? In any legislative body in the US? Yet I post an actual attempt by your side, the side you claim is "rational" and misunderstood and deflect to how reasonable you are in your one world view because it's not your experience. 2 of 535 equals "many," I get that but you have yet to link to proposed or introduced legislation. Seeing how you only go shooting once a year, you'd be okay with your gun and ammo being stored,

    Not all guns but perhaps semi automatic ones:

    new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

    The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

    “It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

    The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

    he proposal also creates significant implementation challenges, since it contains zero grandfather provisions for existing gun owners or manufacturers. The bill also fails to provide any means by which existing gun owners and manufacturers could turn in their weapons to federal authorities to avoid running afoul of the bill’s effective ban on the possession of any semi-automatic firearms or parts. Absent a statutory federal gun buyback, which is not included in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, it does not appear that current law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers would have any way to abide by the constraints of the law in good faith absent a massive federal confiscation effort.

    The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it opposed the Curbelo/Moulton proposal. In a separate statement, the organization said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives (ATF) already had the legal authority necessary to ban bump stocks and that additional legislation was unnecessary. The group noted that bump stocks were originally approved by the Obama administration in 2010.

    It is unclear at this time whether Curbelo and Moulton intended to propose such an expansive ban on all semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Also unknown is why the authors of the proposal chose to target rates of fire across all weapons instead of specifically banning bump stocks themselves, which consist of a single grip and stock assembly that is designed to rock a rifle back and forth against an individual’s finger in order to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle weapon.

    Neither Curbelo’s nor Moulton’s office responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification on the design and intent of their gun control proposal.


    So it is either a sneaky/divisive bill or just a poorly written one.  As much as I hate to say it, with the conversations that have transpired as of late, I am getting closer and closer to the “don’t give an inch” platform especially when it comes to democratic created bills.  “Change you can believe in”...
    Getting closer? Don't pretend you weren't always in the "don't give an inch" camp.




  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956
    I actually agree. I wouldnt expect the bill to use the term "bump stock" because they would have to define what it is anyway. That is what the bill tries to do. Saying a gun goes from a firing rate of zero to shooting as defense that this actually bans all semiauto guns (and why not just all guns in general, because even revolvers can fire faster with the addition of something like a trigger and a cylinder) sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me.
    But I agree with previous posts too that many gun laws are just poorly written.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,821
    mace1229 said:
    I actually agree. I wouldnt expect the bill to use the term "bump stock" because they would have to define what it is anyway. That is what the bill tries to do. Saying a gun goes from a firing rate of zero to shooting as defense that this actually bans all semiauto guns (and why not just all guns in general, because even revolvers can fire faster with the addition of something like a trigger and a cylinder) sounds like a pretty dumb argument to me.
    But I agree with previous posts too that many gun laws are just poorly written.

    Yes, the "any rate faster than zero" argument is just grasping-at-straws to come up with a way to argue against it, without admitting that they desperately needed to find a loophole so they could argue.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • vaggar99vaggar99 San Diego USA Posts: 3,425
    7 years old.  the man you idolized gets sent to prison.  might you fuck you up a little
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,594
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













This discussion has been closed.