The gun thread

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Stebben84 » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:11 am

So a majority of the public, a majority of the Senate, possibly a majority of the House, and the administration support some form of universal background checks but,

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) and 40 Republicans are passing around a Dear Colleague letter asking Republicans in the House to pressure Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) not to take up a bill expanding background checks for gun purchases “without the support of a majority of the conference.” Boehner has brought measures to the floor that are not backed by a majority of Republicans several times in the past, breaking the Hastert rule and outraging conservative members.


So even when you don't have a majority, your going to kill any bill you don't like. Kicking and screaming like a little kid who doesn't get their way. How delightfully childish. And, I won't be surprised when Boehner caves to their demands.

Huh? Wonder if these folks are in the pocket of the NRA.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Stebben84 » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:21 am

And let me add, they don't even know what the final bill is yet. Assholes.

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7981
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby fisticuffs » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:54 am

Stebben84 wrote:And let me add, they don't even know what the final bill is yet. Assholes.


I heard they were going to confiscate hand guns.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12972
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:33 pm

The only bill they'll vote for is the one where everybody gets a free gun.

And if Obama proposes that, they wouldn't vote for it either.

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7981
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby fisticuffs » Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:36 pm

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04 ... und-checks

Background checks are just a way to collect the list of people to kill with machete's. It makes sense to me now.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21670
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:43 pm

fisticuffs wrote:Background checks are just a way to collect the list of people to kill with machete's.

First thing I though of was this:
Image

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Stebben84 » Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:54 pm

fisticuffs wrote:http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/jeff-duncan-rwanda-genocide-background-checks

Background checks are just a way to collect the list of people to kill with machete's. It makes sense to me now.


I hope they continue to say shit like this. I feel like they lose more people this way and the only ones that fall for this crap are those like DMan.

BSH
Senior Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:27 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:How are your examples of invading another country the same as the citizenry of the U.S. rebelling against its own government? Take Vietnam for example. Russia and China gave matériel and manpower support to the North. It wasn't just the people of Vietnam by themselves.


You're the one who suggested the conventional military might of the US armed forces was a monolithic and insurmountable barrier to any hypothetical overthrow of tyranny. I merely pointed out that insurgency by a populace who rejects the government is superior to any conventional military might. By the way, the US Army agrees with that assessment.

BSH
Senior Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:31 pm

peripat wrote:I'd certainly agree that the founding fathers did not intend us to fight off our own government. I expect they'd be horrified by the current wing nut position on the second amendment.


That statement is excessively vague; what is the wing nut position? That an assault weapons ban could be considered permissible?

They would be horrified by what has been allowed to happen in spite of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 10th amendments.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21670
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:36 pm

BSH wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:How are your examples of invading another country the same as the citizenry of the U.S. rebelling against its own government? Take Vietnam for example. Russia and China gave matériel and manpower support to the North. It wasn't just the people of Vietnam by themselves.

You're the one who suggested the conventional military might of the US armed forces was a monolithic and insurmountable barrier to any hypothetical overthrow of tyranny. I merely pointed out that insurgency by a populace who rejects the government is superior to any conventional military might. By the way, the US Army agrees with that assessment.


Invading another nation is different than defending the U.S. against an internal insurrection. Of course people will fight to end a foreign military incursion. That was the point you seem to have missed.

Take Afghanistan, for example. The old Russian Empire as well as the British Empire learned that lesson in the 19th Century. Google "The Great Game". In the 20th and 21st Centuries The former Soviet Union and now the U.S. is relearning that lesson.

BSH
Senior Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:42 pm

Insurgency by a populace who rejects the government is superior to any conventional military might.

Doesn't matter who the government is, who the army is, or where anybody gets their support from. If a critical mass of the body politic rejects the established government and acts to throw it off, no army can stop it. Unless they resort to genocide, in which case there is no economic or political nation left to govern anyway.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21670
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:46 pm

BSH wrote:Insurgency by a populace who rejects the government is superior to any conventional military might.

Doesn't matter who the government is, who the army is, or where anybody gets their support from. If a critical mass of the body politic rejects the established government and acts to throw it off, no army can stop it. Unless they resort to genocide, in which case there is no economic or political nation left to govern anyway.

The result of the Civil War tells another story.

BSH
Senior Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:56 pm

I have another question to throw out. I don't see any rational, objective basis to support an "assault weapons" ban. These are weapons most noteworthy in crime for their rarity. Some have pointed out how absurd it is that some configurations of a Mini 14 would be banned, but some would not - when they have the same basic mechanics and fire the same cartridge. The 1994 ban has been studied, and the NIJ reported no measurable effect on crime, homicides, or victimization rates. So why go after these guns, that most criminals don't want anyway (too expensive, too hard to conceal)? I understand the emotional argument, that these guns are scary looking, they look intimidating, the very description gives pause to some folks. But the rational support just doesn't seem to be there, at least not from anything I've read in any news or analysis on the subject.

BSH
Senior Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:57 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:The result of the Civil War tells another story.


Touche. I guess the South had greater need of small arms among the populace...

Besides which, it wasn't an insurgency at all, it was a regular, full-scale war.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21670
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:02 pm

Besides the thrill of firing a lot of shots in a short period of time, what rational reason is there to possess a firearm that can do so? That feature is useless in hunting, since if you miss your game after a few rounds, the critter will be long gone and out of range.

Yes, semi and automatic weapons with large capacities have only been used in a relatively few murders. But their body counts were very high.


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests