Las Vegas massacre.
Comments
-
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind.Halifax2TheMax said:
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"mace1229 said:
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done.Go Beavers said:
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.mace1229 said:
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.rgambs said:Nice to see some genuine discussion!
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective.
Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be.
I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws.
To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse.
But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations.
lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times.
i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
Except that's not what you said. Do you have a link to Feinstein and Pelosi's official statements on gun control and your claim that they want to ban them? I ask because the misrepresentation of facts and positions by those in favor of sensible gun control legislation is rampant, common and a tactic of the nutters. Please back your claims in the previous post with legitimate links to Feinstein, Pelosi's or all the "other" anti gunners. Google is your friend and if as common as you claim, it should be easy enough to link to.mace1229 said:
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind.Halifax2TheMax said:
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"mace1229 said:
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done.Go Beavers said:
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.mace1229 said:
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.rgambs said:Nice to see some genuine discussion!
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective.
Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be.
I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws.
To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse.
But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations.
lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times.
i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
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; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Define "everyday people." Does that include law abiding? Felons? Inner city or country folk? Mentally ill? Everyday people? Like Paddock? Harris and Klebold? Cho? Salvi? Lanza?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; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Senate Bills 1923 and 1916, introduced by Senator Feinstein, trying to take rights away from "everyday people." Power to her and her cosponsers.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; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Upon seeing her Clinton gun ban enacted in 1994, she said: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."Halifax2TheMax said:
Except that's not what you said. Do you have a link to Feinstein and Pelosi's official statements on gun control and your claim that they want to ban them? I ask because the misrepresentation of facts and positions by those in favor of sensible gun control legislation is rampant, common and a tactic of the nutters. Please back your claims in the previous post with legitimate links to Feinstein, Pelosi's or all the "other" anti gunners. Google is your friend and if as common as you claim, it should be easy enough to link to.mace1229 said:
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind.Halifax2TheMax said:
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"mace1229 said:
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done.Go Beavers said:
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.mace1229 said:
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.rgambs said:Nice to see some genuine discussion!
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective.
Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be.
I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws.
To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse.
But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations.
lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times.
i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
Fienstein chooses her words more carefully now.0 -
tempo_n_groove said:
Upon seeing her Clinton gun ban enacted in 1994, she said: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."Halifax2TheMax said:
Except that's not what you said. Do you have a link to Feinstein and Pelosi's official statements on gun control and your claim that they want to ban them? I ask because the misrepresentation of facts and positions by those in favor of sensible gun control legislation is rampant, common and a tactic of the nutters. Please back your claims in the previous post with legitimate links to Feinstein, Pelosi's or all the "other" anti gunners. Google is your friend and if as common as you claim, it should be easy enough to link to.mace1229 said:
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind.Halifax2TheMax said:
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"mace1229 said:
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done.Go Beavers said:
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.mace1229 said:
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.rgambs said:Nice to see some genuine discussion!
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective.
Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be.
I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws.
To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse.
But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations.
lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times.
i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
Fienstein chooses her words more carefully now.
assuming that was related to assault weapons listed under that finite ban.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
So we have one US senator out of 100 and a quote from 1994 as evidence of "many?" Okay then, I'll try to avoid that wave of UN troops coming to take everyone's guns.tempo_n_groove said:
Upon seeing her Clinton gun ban enacted in 1994, she said: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."Halifax2TheMax said:
Except that's not what you said. Do you have a link to Feinstein and Pelosi's official statements on gun control and your claim that they want to ban them? I ask because the misrepresentation of facts and positions by those in favor of sensible gun control legislation is rampant, common and a tactic of the nutters. Please back your claims in the previous post with legitimate links to Feinstein, Pelosi's or all the "other" anti gunners. Google is your friend and if as common as you claim, it should be easy enough to link to.mace1229 said:
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind.Halifax2TheMax said:
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"mace1229 said:
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done.Go Beavers said:
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.mace1229 said:
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.rgambs said:Nice to see some genuine discussion!
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective.
Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be.
I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws.
To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse.
But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations.
lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times.
i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
Fienstein chooses her words more carefully now.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; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
news flash:mace1229 said:
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind.Halifax2TheMax said:
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"mace1229 said:
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done.Go Beavers said:
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.mace1229 said:
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.rgambs said:Nice to see some genuine discussion!
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective.
Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be.
I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws.
To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse.
But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations.
lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times.
i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
When 2A was written, everyday people didn't have unfettered access to guns. It was a luxury item, and still is today. The only way for many people to acquire a gun was to join the state militia (it was well-regulated).0 -
Aren’t there states out there that consider all of its residents as members of their “well-regulated militia”? Well regulated being that they are bound by the state’s laws and regulations? I think that if the wording were ever changed to only allow state militia personnel to own firearms, many other states would take this approach as well...and I would support their ability to do this.CM189191 said:
news flash:mace1229 said:
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind.Halifax2TheMax said:
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"mace1229 said:
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done.Go Beavers said:
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.mace1229 said:
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.rgambs said:Nice to see some genuine discussion!
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective.
Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be.
I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws.
To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse.
But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations.
lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times.
i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
When 2A was written, everyday people didn't have unfettered access to guns. It was a luxury item, and still is today. The only way for many people to acquire a gun was to join the state militia (it was well-regulated).0 -
"I support a well-regulated militia, as long as everyone is part of the militia and there are no regulations"PJPOWER said:
Aren’t there states out there that consider all of its residents as members of their “well-regulated militia”? Well regulated being that they are bound by the state’s laws and regulations? I think that if the wording were ever changed to only allow state militia personnel to own firearms, many other states would take this approach as well...and I would support their ability to do this.CM189191 said:
news flash:mace1229 said:
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind.Halifax2TheMax said:
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"mace1229 said:
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done.Go Beavers said:
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.mace1229 said:
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.rgambs said:Nice to see some genuine discussion!
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective.
Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be.
I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws.
To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse.
But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations.
lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times.
i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
When 2A was written, everyday people didn't have unfettered access to guns. It was a luxury item, and still is today. The only way for many people to acquire a gun was to join the state militia (it was well-regulated).0 -
Wrong, I support the people. The “well regulated militia” wording and intent of the 2nd Ammendment argument has been hashed out in the other forum multiple times. If you want a recap, go dig the comments up. I am not going to participate in yet another debate on this dead horse. Maybe others would appease.CM189191 said:
"I support a well-regulated militia, as long as everyone is part of the militia and there are no regulations"PJPOWER said:
Aren’t there states out there that consider all of its residents as members of their “well-regulated militia”? Well regulated being that they are bound by the state’s laws and regulations? I think that if the wording were ever changed to only allow state militia personnel to own firearms, many other states would take this approach as well...and I would support their ability to do this.CM189191 said:
news flash:mace1229 said:
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind.Halifax2TheMax said:
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"mace1229 said:
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done.Go Beavers said:
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.mace1229 said:
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.rgambs said:Nice to see some genuine discussion!
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective.
Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be.
I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws.
To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse.
But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations.
lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times.
i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
When 2A was written, everyday people didn't have unfettered access to guns. It was a luxury item, and still is today. The only way for many people to acquire a gun was to join the state militia (it was well-regulated).0 -
Last week.Halifax2TheMax said:
Except that's not what you said. Do you have a link to Feinstein and Pelosi's official statements on gun control and your claim that they want to ban them? I ask because the misrepresentation of facts and positions by those in favor of sensible gun control legislation is rampant, common and a tactic of the nutters. Please back your claims in the previous post with legitimate links to Feinstein, Pelosi's or all the "other" anti gunners. Google is your friend and if as common as you claim, it should be easy enough to link to.mace1229 said:
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind.Halifax2TheMax said:
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"mace1229 said:
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done.Go Beavers said:
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.mace1229 said:
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.rgambs said:Nice to see some genuine discussion!
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective.
Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be.
I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws.
To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse.
But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations.
lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times.
i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
Pelosi: "“So what?” Pelosi responded. “They’re going to say, ‘You give them bump stock, it’s going to be a slippery slope.’ I certainly hope so."
Don't really need a link because its all over the news. But here's one anyway
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/05/pelosi-hopes-for-slippery-slope-on-gun-regulations/
0 -
So you're not denying they say it, just defending why they do?CM189191 said:
news flash:mace1229 said:
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind.Halifax2TheMax said:
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"mace1229 said:
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done.Go Beavers said:
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.mace1229 said:
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.rgambs said:Nice to see some genuine discussion!
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective.
Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be.
I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws.
To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse.
But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations.
lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times.
i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
When 2A was written, everyday people didn't have unfettered access to guns. It was a luxury item, and still is today. The only way for many people to acquire a gun was to join the state militia (it was well-regulated).
Thats fine, just trying to be clear because Halifax seems to deny any politician would even dream of getting ride of gun rights. At least you admit what is blatantly obvious.
But you bring up when I think is the best defense of gun control, that it isn't the same as it was 200+ years ago. I don't think it equates to banning all guns, but one reason why I'm for restrictions on many of them.0 -
mace1229 said:
So you're not denying they say it, just defending why they do?CM189191 said:
news flash:mace1229 said:
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind.Halifax2TheMax said:
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"mace1229 said:
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done.Go Beavers said:
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.mace1229 said:
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.rgambs said:Nice to see some genuine discussion!
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective.
Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be.
I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws.
To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse.
But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations.
lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times.
i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
When 2A was written, everyday people didn't have unfettered access to guns. It was a luxury item, and still is today. The only way for many people to acquire a gun was to join the state militia (it was well-regulated).
Thats fine, just trying to be clear because Halifax seems to deny any politician would even dream of getting ride of gun rights. At least you admit what is blatantly obvious.
But you bring up when I think is the best defense of gun control, that it isn't the same as it was 200+ years ago. I don't think it equates to banning all guns, but one reason why I'm for restrictions on many of them.
I'm denying that "many" want to ban guns in their entirety. You claimed "many" and so far have offered 2 of 535. And have only linked to 1. If that's "many," well, just wow.Have you ever flown over the US? Ever thought about what it would take to first, ban all guns and second, be able to confiscate them from every household that possesses them? But you fear it anyway?
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; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
they fear they will pass legislation similar to that of Australia. which WON'T. EVER. HAPPEN.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0
-
"Imagine"
- J LennonThe whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-130 -
I've said "many" times that I personally don't fear that. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. Just stating that is the reason that others oppose gun regulation.Halifax2TheMax said:mace1229 said:
So you're not denying they say it, just defending why they do?CM189191 said:
news flash:mace1229 said:
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind.Halifax2TheMax said:
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"mace1229 said:
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done.Go Beavers said:
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.mace1229 said:
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.rgambs said:Nice to see some genuine discussion!
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective.
Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be.
I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws.
To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse.
But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations.
lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times.
i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
When 2A was written, everyday people didn't have unfettered access to guns. It was a luxury item, and still is today. The only way for many people to acquire a gun was to join the state militia (it was well-regulated).
Thats fine, just trying to be clear because Halifax seems to deny any politician would even dream of getting ride of gun rights. At least you admit what is blatantly obvious.
But you bring up when I think is the best defense of gun control, that it isn't the same as it was 200+ years ago. I don't think it equates to banning all guns, but one reason why I'm for restrictions on many of them.
I'm denying that "many" want to ban guns in their entirety. You claimed "many" and so far have offered 2 of 535. And have only linked to 1. If that's "many," well, just wow.Have you ever flown over the US? Ever thought about what it would take to first, ban all guns and second, be able to confiscate them from every household that possesses them? But you fear it anyway?
I'm not going to give you a list of names that I believe would want something that could be compared to a ban. Mostly because I don;t feel like giving up the time to do so. I've also mentioned on here before most who fear a gun ban don't picture the government knock on their door across the country (and yes, I've flown CA to South Carolina many times, a long 5 1/2 hr flight). They fear legislature that will prevent them from continuing to keep up their hobby/sport/whatever. But yes, there are lots of politicians who would favor laws that would make it too difficult for the average person to afford a gun.
There was this discussion a couple weeks ago where several on this thread said they would be in favor of such laws and would not consider it a ban. I would, if you pass a law with the intention of preventing people from doing something, that to me is a ban.
And yes there are lots of politicians who know they cant remove guns, so they support bills that would make the cost of ammo too expensive. Which in my mind is completely ineffective because that will only impact the person who goes target shooting and make him give up the gun, and not the guy who uses a gun for armed robbery.
But like I said I personally don't fear that. Although California has already passed some measures in that direction. I'm pretty sure it is illegal to buy ammo online there, and there was a bill to prohibit reloading of ammo (and I think it passed). Ammo, just like everything else, is half the price when you buy it online. Thats the only reason people do it. My wife even buys our diapers and diaper pale refills online because its half the price as Walmart. If someone passed a bill to ban the sale of online diapers but allowed you to still get the same ones from the store, you'd probably there there was something wrong with that too. Yes, of course diapers don't kill people. But they don;t target the ammo, they just make it more expensive so people don't buy as much as their way of gun restrictions. And that isn't a fear, that has already happened. So having people believe that one day it will just be too expensive and too much red tape is completely understandable to me. And CA might get there one day, I don't see it as a nationwide event in my lifetime.0 -
a nutjob I used to work with, with a temper that I've never experienced before or since, used to make his own fucking bullets in his house. he once told me a story about how he pulled a gun on his neighbour because the guy cut some branches off a tree that was on his property, but the branches hung over into the neighbour's yard, getting leaves in his pool.
so glad he retired. we all thought if there's going to be an office shooting in Canada, it's going to be him.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
You are right, that is untenable. That being said, there is probably a list of politicians that would vote for that type of legislation. I would put them in the category of eccentric or extremist and I will never vote for a politician that even supports such legislation. Get the extremism of both parties out of office and then you *may see some bipartisan change. But that, most likely, will never happen either. It seems more logical to disregard fairy tale untenable legislation all together and brainstorm outside the box ways of bringing people together to combat those that intend to do harm to others. But that is seeming more and more unrealistic too...I guess getting cynical and bitching on online forums is probably the most effective method.HughFreakingDillon said:they fear they will pass legislation similar to that of Australia. which WON'T. EVER. HAPPEN.
FYI- That last line was sarcasm for those that have trouble recognizing. Does sarcasm mean that I have given up on the debate? Quite possibly...but not for the reasons that some of the eccentric people around here are going to try fabricating. It is due to the pointlessness of it all. People assuming, belittling, name calling, twisting and flat out fabricating lies in attempts to demonize others is where my “giving up” comes from. I recognize that I have done my part in name calling (libtards) and probably assuming here and there as well...so take this as my official resignation from “seriously” debating this issue with some around here. I will do my best not to comment to or recognize those that I deam unproductive. Thank you and props to you, Hugh, for being a positive beacon of light in these clusterfuck conversations!Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
Hugh,HughFreakingDillon said:a nutjob I used to work with, with a temper that I've never experienced before or since, used to make his own fucking bullets in his house. he once told me a story about how he pulled a gun on his neighbour because the guy cut some branches off a tree that was on his property, but the branches hung over into the neighbour's yard, getting leaves in his pool.
so glad he retired. we all thought if there's going to be an office shooting in Canada, it's going to be him.
do you think there is something wrong about reloading?I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help