America's Gun Violence

tbergs

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

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other Democrats last week introduced their own bill in the Senate to ban bump stocks that would prohibit "the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire," according to a press release.

tempo_n_groove

tbergs said:

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

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other Democrats last week introduced their own bill in the Senate to ban bump stocks that would prohibit "the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire," according to a press release.

I don't like the "transfer" wording but I understand why it's in there.

Halifax2TheMax

tempo_n_groove said:

tbergs said:

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

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other Democrats last week introduced their own bill in the Senate to ban bump stocks that would prohibit "the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire," according to a press release.

I don't like the "transfer" wording but I understand why it's in there.

All guns and their accessories start out as legal and I'm assuming most gun owners start out as "responsible."

mace1229

*Wrong quote

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

No, I've said exactly why nothing changes. It's no mystery to me.
Neither side wants to compromise. When you have politicians like Pelosi who say they hope its a slippery slope and admit they'll take an inch if you give a mile only give motive for gun lobbyists to fight any changes.

rgambs

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

No, I've said exactly why nothing changes. It's no mystery to me.
Neither side wants to compromise. When you have politicians like Pelosi who say they hope its a slippery slope and admit they'll take an inch if you give a mile only give motive for gun lobbyists to fight any changes.

That's baloney, the Democrats are compromising just by coming to the table with the extremists on the right.
They are full of compromises and the right hasn't budged an inch in a generation.

PJPOWER

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  

PJPOWER

tbergs said:

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

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other Democrats last week introduced their own bill in the Senate to ban bump stocks that would prohibit "the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire," according to a press release.

I didn’t read the article, but am aware of the debate. What would be included in the “similar accessories” category?  I would not be in favor of anything that quacky Feinstein has touched.  She is a large reason that gun owners fear unreasonable restrictions being implemented and have an underlying distrust of Democrat created legislation on firearms.

HughFreakingDillon

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. 

oftenreading

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  

The quote doesn't claim that the ATF is funded by the NRA; it questions whether it is "fully funded" - i.e. whether it receives the funding to monitor what it would be asked to monitor and manage. If not, it's a purely cosmetic change that's being proposed. 

Halifax2TheMax

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  

Okay, I'll humor you and your hostile response to my two questions. Banning those two types of ammunition wouldn't have prevented any mass killings. Now explain to me why a "responsible" gun owner needs military style ammunition? I never claimed the ATF was funded by the NRA, I made a comparison of two federal agencies. Nice pivot and deflection.

tbergs

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

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

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other Democrats last week introduced their own bill in the Senate to ban bump stocks that would prohibit "the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire," according to a press release.

I didn’t read the article, but am aware of the debate. What would be included in the “similar accessories” category?  I would not be in favor of anything that quacky Feinstein has touched.  She is a large reason that gun owners fear unreasonable restrictions being implemented and have an underlying distrust of Democrat created legislation on firearms.

It is only talking about accessories that allow for the increased firing rate of the weapon. Can you explain to me why any gun needs to have the ability to increase the already set manufacturer rate of fire? This is about limiting anything besides the ability to increase kill rates, which is obviously being proposed to save human lives and that is it. People are all for the bump stocks because now they are known, but that doesn't eliminate the potential for some other accessory to be used for a similar purpose. This bill is looking to curb that from ever even being a possibility.

Everything about you response is fear based. You talk about looking for reasonable compromise and here it is, but you still argue against it because this one bill will lead to the end of gun ownership. This is why people say the gun lobby runs congress. They allow no compromise and then act like it's the other side being ridiculous.

mcgruff10

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  

Okay, I'll humor you and your hostile response to my two questions. Banning those two types of ammunition wouldn't have prevented any mass killings. Now explain to me why a "responsible" gun owner needs military style ammunition? I never claimed the ATF was funded by the NRA, I made a comparison of two federal agencies. Nice pivot and deflection.

Is there any pending Canadian legislation banning military weapons or ammunition?  I mean if I lived in Canada I could buy a svt 40 for cheap!  The 7.62x45r is one nasty bullet!

PJPOWER

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

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

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other Democrats last week introduced their own bill in the Senate to ban bump stocks that would prohibit "the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire," according to a press release.

I didn’t read the article, but am aware of the debate. What would be included in the “similar accessories” category?  I would not be in favor of anything that quacky Feinstein has touched.  She is a large reason that gun owners fear unreasonable restrictions being implemented and have an underlying distrust of Democrat created legislation on firearms.

It is only talking about accessories that allow for the increased firing rate of the weapon. Can you explain to me why any gun needs to have the ability to increase the already set manufacturer rate of fire? This is about limiting anything besides the ability to increase kill rates, which is obviously being proposed to save human lives and that is it. People are all for the bump stocks because now they are known, but that doesn't eliminate the potential for some other accessory to be used for a similar purpose. This bill is looking to curb that from ever even being a possibility.

Everything about you response is fear based. You talk about looking for reasonable compromise and here it is, but you still argue against it because this one bill will lead to the end of gun ownership. This is why people say the gun lobby runs congress. They allow no compromise and then act like it's the other side being ridiculous.

I was actually being honest.  What other accessories increase the rate of fire?  Would after market triggers increase the rate of fire?  Would muzzle breaks increase the rate of fire?  It just seems like it is very vague on what else that would encompass.  I do fear people like Feinstein creating any sort of legislation just like legislation from Trump would be feared.  They are both insane blowhards.

PJPOWER

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  

Okay, I'll humor you and your hostile response to my two questions. Banning those two types of ammunition wouldn't have prevented any mass killings. Now explain to me why a "responsible" gun owner needs military style ammunition? I never claimed the ATF was funded by the NRA, I made a comparison of two federal agencies. Nice pivot and deflection.

“Military style ammunition”?  Most military ammunition is the same cheap ammunition that is used for target practice and probably is less deadly than many of the sofisticated hunting rounds.  In fact, most hunting rounds would probably violate the acceptable types of of bullets that can be used by military personnel.  I have a problem with terms like “military style ammunition”.  I do not have a problem with banning tracer rounds or bump stocks, but am not on board with a sweeping “military style” anything ban.  That term is thrown out there by politicians and nutters that have no idea what they are talking about...or by people that are being purposefully deceptive.  All of the lying and deception by eccentrics is why nothing is ever accomplished.  

mace1229

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

No, I've said exactly why nothing changes. It's no mystery to me.
Neither side wants to compromise. When you have politicians like Pelosi who say they hope its a slippery slope and admit they'll take an inch if you give a mile only give motive for gun lobbyists to fight any changes.

That's baloney, the Democrats are compromising just by coming to the table with the extremists on the right.
They are full of compromises and the right hasn't budged an inch in a generation.

I didn't say I agree with it, but there are enough democrats who voice their opinions enough to fuel the anti-gun control crowd.
Just like there are plenty of gun owners and politicians who do support gun control, but there's enough out there who want nothing and those are the ones you hear from the most.

mcgruff10

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  

Okay, I'll humor you and your hostile response to my two questions. Banning those two types of ammunition wouldn't have prevented any mass killings. Now explain to me why a "responsible" gun owner needs military style ammunition? I never claimed the ATF was funded by the NRA, I made a comparison of two federal agencies. Nice pivot and deflection.

“Military style ammunition”?  Most military ammunition is the same cheap ammunition that is used for target practice and probably is less deadly than many of the sofisticated hunting rounds.  In fact, most hunting rounds would probably violate the acceptable types of of bullets that can be used by military personnel.  I have a problem with terms like “military style ammunition”.  I do not have a problem with banning tracer rounds or bump stocks, but am not on board with a sweeping “military style” anything ban.  That term is thrown out there by politicians and nutters that have no idea what they are talking about...or by people that are being purposefully deceptive.  All of the lying and deception by eccentrics is why nothing is ever accomplished.  

Ammo that the U.S. military uses that I also use:
12 gauge 
30.06
308
5.56/.223 
9mm 
45
Way too broad of a definition.  I have no problem banning tracer or incidinary rounds.

PJPOWER

mcgruff10 said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  

Okay, I'll humor you and your hostile response to my two questions. Banning those two types of ammunition wouldn't have prevented any mass killings. Now explain to me why a "responsible" gun owner needs military style ammunition? I never claimed the ATF was funded by the NRA, I made a comparison of two federal agencies. Nice pivot and deflection.

“Military style ammunition”?  Most military ammunition is the same cheap ammunition that is used for target practice and probably is less deadly than many of the sofisticated hunting rounds.  In fact, most hunting rounds would probably violate the acceptable types of of bullets that can be used by military personnel.  I have a problem with terms like “military style ammunition”.  I do not have a problem with banning tracer rounds or bump stocks, but am not on board with a sweeping “military style” anything ban.  That term is thrown out there by politicians and nutters that have no idea what they are talking about...or by people that are being purposefully deceptive.  All of the lying and deception by eccentrics is why nothing is ever accomplished.  

Ammo that the U.S. military uses that I also use:
12 gauge 
30.06
308
5.56/.223 
9mm 
45
Way too broad of a definition.  I have no problem banning tracer or incidinary rounds.

Sounds like a compromise if I have ever heard one

Halifax2TheMax

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  

Okay, I'll humor you and your hostile response to my two questions. Banning those two types of ammunition wouldn't have prevented any mass killings. Now explain to me why a "responsible" gun owner needs military style ammunition? I never claimed the ATF was funded by the NRA, I made a comparison of two federal agencies. Nice pivot and deflection.

“Military style ammunition”?  Most military ammunition is the same cheap ammunition that is used for target practice and probably is less deadly than many of the sofisticated hunting rounds.  In fact, most hunting rounds would probably violate the acceptable types of of bullets that can be used by military personnel.  I have a problem with terms like “military style ammunition”.  I do not have a problem with banning tracer rounds or bump stocks, but am not on board with a sweeping “military style” anything ban.  That term is thrown out there by politicians and nutters that have no idea what they are talking about...or by people that are being purposefully deceptive.  All of the lying and deception by eccentrics is why nothing is ever accomplished.  

If you go back to my original question, why the need for incendiary and tracer rounds? For public consumption? Is this the slippery slope you're so afraid of? Do try to keep the conversation in context, its like arguing that the use of the term magazine versus clip when everyone knows what we're talking about. But hey, 1 out of 100 and 1 out of 435 is many, so there is that. 

PJPOWER

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  

Okay, I'll humor you and your hostile response to my two questions. Banning those two types of ammunition wouldn't have prevented any mass killings. Now explain to me why a "responsible" gun owner needs military style ammunition? I never claimed the ATF was funded by the NRA, I made a comparison of two federal agencies. Nice pivot and deflection.

“Military style ammunition”?  Most military ammunition is the same cheap ammunition that is used for target practice and probably is less deadly than many of the sofisticated hunting rounds.  In fact, most hunting rounds would probably violate the acceptable types of of bullets that can be used by military personnel.  I have a problem with terms like “military style ammunition”.  I do not have a problem with banning tracer rounds or bump stocks, but am not on board with a sweeping “military style” anything ban.  That term is thrown out there by politicians and nutters that have no idea what they are talking about...or by people that are being purposefully deceptive.  All of the lying and deception by eccentrics is why nothing is ever accomplished.  

If you go back to my original question, why the need for incendiary and tracer rounds? For public consumption? Is this the slippery slope you're so afraid of? Do try to keep the conversation in context, its like arguing that the use of the term magazine versus clip when everyone knows what we're talking about. But hey, 1 out of 100 and 1 out of 435 is many, so there is that. 

I have said multiple times that there is no need for incendiary or tracer rounds...do you even read?  Make them illegal to own or purchase, no one is really going to care.  Make the law specifically say, “It is illegal to sell, purchase, own incendiary or tracer ammunition”.  The slippery slope would be if the law stated “all military style” anything.  That, I would not be in support of.