This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Why can't we talk about an absolute ban in America on automatic weapons after a massacre by automatic weapons

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

ALTLEFTCRIMINALS wrote:

Silencers are already out there to be bought.

I know. You can also make 'em out of a 2-liter Coke bottle. With spray paint it even becomes a flash suppressor. But that doesn't mean civilians have any legit use for 'em, and there's no reason Congress should be making 'em legal.


Try attending a gun show. However silerncers would have been no use to our last shooter. Silencers melt under the strain of a high cyclic rate of fire weapon. Don't be stupid like Hillary .

I know all that, clown. I've known it for years, although I'm pretty sure you just learned it yesterday. Believe me, you have no info that everybody else here doesn't already have. You and Pkr and Joni combined aren't as smart as the next-dumbest person on this board, so it's hilarious when you put your professor hat on, like a kid playing dress-up in clothes too big for 'im.

Y'see, everything's not about the last shooter. Some things are about the next one. The point is, despite all the gun violence, Republicans are trying to make weapons modifications that no civilian has a legitimate use for easier to get... because the NRA has them in their pocket. They own them. And they -- through propaganda -- own you, because you're too stupid and slavishly addicted to authority to question even the most foolish things they do. It doesn't matter that silencers wouldn't have been much of a factor in this incident... because this, assuredly, will not be the last such incident. Hell, the way things go in this country, we'll be lucky if it's the last mass shooting this week.


All of your frothing at the mouth means you just really need to rename your sock to - Verbose

Ooo, nice reply... after getting your lightweight ass kicked every single time we've interacted. First, I'm not a sock... which is a funny accusation for you to make, given your history. Second, I've admitted to verbosity at least a dozen times. I make fun of myself for it. You're gonna have to try harder than that, pumpkin. Very Happy

View user profile
The coward broke numerous laws. What new laws do you propose?

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:The coward broke numerous laws. What new laws do you propose?

Exactly.


More from the scene- good article-

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/las-vegas-gunman.html

View user profile

GOP still plans to vote on NRA-backed legislation that eases gun restrictions

October 2, 2017

Chris Murphy ✔️@ChrisMurphyCT
To my colleagues: your cowardice to act cannot be whitewashed by thoughts and prayers.

None of this ends unless we do something to stop it.
11:02 AM - Oct 2, 2017
3,097 3,097 Replies 57,375 57,375 Retweets 152,529 152,529 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Congress has been unable, or unwilling, to approve gun control legislation after recent mass shootings — including one targeting lawmakers playing baseball — and it is unlikely to consider new bills after the attack in Las Vegas.

To the contrary, House Republicans are on track to advance legislation easing firearms rules, including a package of bills backed by the National Rifle Assn. that would make it easier to purchase silencers.

Opponents of the bill argue that making silencers more prevalent could worsen the impact of mass shootings. Supporters say silencers can prevent hearing damage among hunters.

The Sportsman's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act (SHARE Act) was introduced last month, and gun advocates hoped for swift passage. It would allow gun owners to transport registered firearms across state lines, carry guns in national parks and eliminate the $200 transfer tax on silencers.

Earlier versions of the bill had stalled under President Obama, but advocates have been hopeful that Congress will send it to President Trump's desk to become law.

"America’s gun owners have been waiting for many years for Congress to send the SHARE Act to the president’s desk," the NRA's legislative arm wrote last month when the bill was introduced. "Their patience may now be rewarded with the strongest, most far-reaching version of the Act yet."

The legislation was advancing through Congress even after gun safety advocates raised concerns that silencers could prove even more deadly in a mass shooting.

Another NRA priority is a bill that would allow gun owners who live in states that allow people to carry concealed weapons to carry them in other states, overriding state laws to the contrary. That bill has not been scheduled for a vote.

Bills toughening gun laws, a subject on which the nation has long been bitterly divided, have repeatedly stalled in Congress. Nearly all Republicans in Congress oppose new gun control legislation, and several Democrats from rural states have also voted to stop previous gun control moves.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who has taken the lead on gun safety issues after a gunman opened fire and killed 20 children at a Newtown elementary school in 2012, urged lawmakers to act.

“This must stop. It is positively infuriating that my colleagues in Congress are so afraid of the gun industry that they pretend there aren't public policy responses to this epidemic," Murphy said. "It's time for Congress to get off its ass and do something."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-las-vegas-shooting-live-updates-congress-unable-to-pass-firearm-1506964271-htmlstory.html


************

OCT. 3, 2017, 2:36 P.M.

Republicans are unwilling to consider new gun safety laws as Democrats plead with Trump to intervene

Republican leaders in Congress showed no interest Tuesday in pursuing gun control legislation, leaving Democrats to urge President Trump to intervene in the aftermath of the shooting in Las Vegas.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said only Trump could change the stalemate in Congress, which has been unable to approve new gun safety bills, despite majority public support after the nation's repeated mass shootings.

"A small powerful lobby that represents a vast minority — a very small minority — of Americans seems to have a stranglehold on the Republican Party," Schumer said, referring to gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Assn.

"Let's see if he has the courage, the willpower to say, 'I’m going to break with that small group' and do something that makes common sense and Americans — in overwhelming numbers, Democrats, Republicans and independents — want."

It is unclear whether Democrats will find a willing negotiator in Trump. The White House has not raised concerns over gun laws since the Las Vegas shooting, which authorities say is the nation's deadliest, despite Trump's interest in stricter gun measures before becoming president.

More certain Tuesday was that Republicans, who control Congress as the majority in the House and Senate, remain opposed to new legislation to clamp down on the purchase or ownership of firearms or related devices like those believed to be used by the Las Vegas shooter.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky warned Tuesday that it was "inappropriate to politicize" the issue while Americans were mourning lives lost and the investigation was continuing.

"It’s premature to be discussing legislative solutions, if there are any," McConnell said.


House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said the shooting was a reminder of the importance of mental health services. He defended legislation passed by Congress earlier this year to roll back an Obama-era requirement for gun background checks for those who have a mental health conditions for which they receive Social Security disability benefits.

"Protecting people's rights was very important," Ryan said. "And that — that's what that issue was all about."


Congress this year has been considering legislation that would loosen gun ownership restrictions, particularly a measure that would eliminate a $200 transfer fee on silencers. Supporters say silencers help protect the hearing of hunters and others using firearms, but opponents warn that easier access could worsen the impact of a mass shooting.

The silencer legislation is part of a broader bill, the Sportsman's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act, or SHARE, backed by the NRA, that also would to allow gun owners to carry registered firearms across state lines and in national parks.

The bill has not been scheduled for a vote, and Ryan did not indicate Tuesday it would be shelved, as Democrats have urged Republicans to do after the Las Vegas shooting.

"That bill's not scheduled now. I don't know when it's going to be scheduled," Ryan told reporters.

Later, on Fox News, Ryan noted: "It's a big bill. It deals with wetlands; it deals with other sportsman's issues. It's not on our schedule because quite frankly, we're focused on tax reform and getting our budget moving right now."


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-las-vegas-shooting-live-updates-congress-unable-to-pass-firearm-1506964271-htmlstory.html

View user profile
This morning I took my cat to the vet to get her annual shots and anti-flea dope ($360... ouch!  Never start feeding a stray unless you're willing to go all-in for 'em).   While I was there they had a radio going.  A guy was on there and something Michael Moore said ticked him off... which doesn't surprise me much.   I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore.  Dude's a whiner and most of his ideas are so extreme they're silly, so I didn't bother looking up what his proposal was.  Anyway, Mike had flipped this radio guy's switch and he was making what he thought was a really compelling argument against gun control.  And I was despairing for the intelligence of Americans if they're getting leadership from radio personalities, because the depth of this guy's thinking wouldn't make a good veneer.

This guy's big monster argument that you could tell he was CRAZY proud of himself for coming up with was this:  the founding fathers were a whole lot more educated than Michael Moore or people in Congress or pretty much anybody alive today.  And so... that's that.  That was really his whole argument.  That he doesn't see what's wrong with that argument is depressing.

Now, I like the 2nd amendment.  I own guns and I'm not against gun ownership.  I don't think any civilian needs full auto (or bump stocks, Gat cranks, or binary triggers that will mimic it) or armor-piercing rounds that leave a wound channel like a Coke can, but you ought to be able to go hunting or defend your home from intruders.  So I'm fine with that.  But, this thing was added in 1791.  Two-hundred-twenty-some years ago.  Whollllle different breed of firearm back then.  If you could travel back in time and tell them "I've got a musket that'll fire 900 rounds a minute and has a range of a couple miles...and, by the way, we cured smallpox" they'd laugh and tell you to get the fuck outta here and ask "where dids't thou find sufficient quantities of rum to inebriate thyself to such preponderance?"  Or something, I'm sure they'd say it better.

Yes, the founding fathers were highly intelligent, very educated men, probably the smartest of their time.   Which was... two-hundred-some years ago.  Saying that they're smarter than we are now isn't exactly right, because a lot happens in two centuries that they would have no knowledge of.  The dumbest person you know (which is Pkr, right?) knows stuff that would dumbfound the founding fathers, like, how to use a remote control or set a digital clock. They probably would have screamed about wizardry if you showed them a flashlight.  So saying they're "smarter than we are" or "had better educations" about modern things is... goofy.  They certainly write better, and think deeper, but you can't apply horse-and-buggy knowledge to an Iphone world and just stop.  Even if they had more capabilities than our modern minds do (which wouldn't surprise me a bit), there's still a couple centuries worth of learnin' to catch up on.

The guy went on with some slippery-slope junk about "they're not really after our full-auto weapons... that's just the start, because they don't want us to have any weapons at all."   This is like saying, "The 55-miles-per-hour speed limit is just a testing ground to see if they can take our cars away!"  If-you-won't-let-me-keep-an-MX-missle-in-my-basement-you're-trying-to-disarm-me is hysterical bullshit you can say if you want to make people laugh.

Then he brought out the whole tray of "the founding fathers wanted us to be able to defend ourselves against the gubm'nt!" Yosemite-Sam horsecookies.  I'm sorry, I know ya like your AR-15, it looks sexy and all, when you hold it you think you're on a Cannon Films movie poster, but have you seen the military?  If the "gubm'nt" comes after you, you are donnnnnne.  They got tanks, attack helicopters, miniguns, they got drones, they got smart bombs, they got gas and sonic devices and all kinds of double-naught spy stuff that's gonna make your shootin'-arn look like a slingshot.  You're not gonna overthrow the government with your stuff you bought.  That makes for fun action novels and movies and stuff, but real-life'll kick that plot in the dick in a hurry.  

Then there's the "criminals aren't gonna obey the law" argument... which basically can be applied to any law.  Why can't I just drive on the sidewalk if I want to?  Criminals would!  So we should just give up on trying to stop people from doing that.  Then he said some stuff about "we don't have a gun problem, we have a morality problem."   Good luck fixin' morality problems!  We've been struggling with that ever since we quit being dizzy on our hind legs.  Until you find a miracle fix for that, let's make machine guns a whole lot harder for assholes to get, why not?  Praying ain't gonna fix it, because God apparently takes a whole lotta days off.

Anyway, he rattled on about some other stuff, trying his damnedest to sound reasonable, but my girl came back with all her shots and I took her home and was spared any more of it.  It was still enough pure uncut dumb to give me a bit of a headache, though.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:Sarah the patronage worker at the White House chastised the press for talking about automatic weapon bans.......Now is not the time to talk about this......gee Sarah, I would rather talk about how a totally unqualified person is press secretary, but this American record of mass murder with automatic weapons seems like a good time to discuss why these weapons are being sold in America.

I have a friend in Arizona who owns a fully automatic machine gun and shoots it regularly at a range.  He keeps it locked in a safe.   Why can we not talk about stopping the sale of these weapons.  

1) We still don't know the types of weapons used. And we don't know if they were modified with the bump stock or really auto.

2) how many other mass killings aside from this had automatic weapons ? This was the first, was it not? Seems like these weapons, if really automatic, have never been used before... the knee jerk reaction isn't needed

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:Sarah the patronage worker at the White House chastised the press for talking about automatic weapon bans.......Now is not the time to talk about this......gee Sarah, I would rather talk about how a totally unqualified person is press secretary, but this American record of mass murder with automatic weapons seems like a good time to discuss why these weapons are being sold in America.

I have a friend in Arizona who owns a fully automatic machine gun and shoots it regularly at a range.  He keeps it locked in a safe.   Why can we not talk about stopping the sale of these weapons.  



They have no souls,

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum