The NRA is full of crap

Joined: March 30th, 2007, 12:27 am

April 7th, 2018, 4:47 pm #181

I wonder if we should be considering other types of mass killings as well. Gases, powders, chemicals that all should be restricted.

We can and should get rid of the machine guns, etc., or whatever they call them but the main culprit is the unstable person who has access to numerous ways to kill. A drawback I can see is people reporting someone as a potential danger when they have no real reason to. I don't know where you start or where you draw the line in any of this potential mess.
You make a living by what you get. You make a life by what you give..
Quote
Like
Share

t
Joined: August 11th, 2007, 12:04 am

April 7th, 2018, 5:30 pm #182

Fortune Cookie wrote:
April 7th, 2018, 3:47 pm
The previous ban was not broad enough and wasn't in place long enough to be effective. 

I'm with sugar: let's try a REAL ban asnd see what happens. I'm all for having a ban that actually bans ALL weapons that can cause this kind of carnage (the previous ban most certainly did not), and keep it in place long enough to have an effect, and then draw conclusion. 

Frack the NRA and the pissants who parrot its talking points. No more fetishizing guns. I don't care how tiny your penis is - just go buy a muscle car for compensation. 
What color gun is it that is the most dangerous?

The red gun that can shoot 10 rounds per second or the blue gun that can shoot 10 rounds a second?

The AWB is a style regulation.

virtually by definition it cannot save any lives

I personally could not care less if they are banned as I do not have one or want one, but I can buy equally effective killing devices in Mass under the ban as anywhere
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2008, 8:26 pm

April 7th, 2018, 5:47 pm #183

battlingignorance wrote:
tyu12 wrote: Tine for Healy and Baker to be voted out
Time for tyu to stop trying to troll-tweak us all. It's getting boring.
because I have a different opinion I am trolling what about the posters who in just about every post calling for a ban aren't they trolling or is it that you have the same opinion it is not trolling.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 19th, 2010, 9:12 pm

April 7th, 2018, 6:26 pm #184

I go back and forth on it, BI.  Tyu...serious or trolling us.  Do you know something I don't...because mostly I land on he/she is serious.  
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 13th, 2010, 12:37 pm

April 7th, 2018, 7:22 pm #185

t wrote:
Fortune Cookie wrote: The previous ban was not broad enough and wasn't in place long enough to be effective. 

I'm with sugar: let's try a REAL ban asnd see what happens. I'm all for having a ban that actually bans ALL weapons that can cause this kind of carnage (the previous ban most certainly did not), and keep it in place long enough to have an effect, and then draw conclusion. 

Frack the NRA and the pissants who parrot its talking points. No more fetishizing guns. I don't care how tiny your penis is - just go buy a muscle car for compensation. 
What color gun is it that is the most dangerous?

The red gun that can shoot 10 rounds per second or the blue gun that can shoot 10 rounds a second?

The AWB is a style regulation.

virtually by definition it cannot save any lives

I personally could not care less if they are banned as I do not have one or want one, but I can buy equally effective killing devices in Mass under the ban as anywhere
You are the same idiot that assured us that Hillary would beat Trump. 

Now you reinforce the evidence that you are a moron by raising frivolous issues I did not raise. Only a complete moronic jackass like you would think anyone with two neurons to rub together would think this was a worthy posting. 

Try again. 
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Fortune Cookie
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 27th, 2011, 4:12 pm

April 7th, 2018, 7:48 pm #186

Fortune Cookie wrote: The previous ban was not broad enough and wasn't in place long enough to be effective. 

I'm with sugar: let's try a REAL ban asnd see what happens. I'm all for having a ban that actually bans ALL weapons that can cause this kind of carnage (the previous ban most certainly did not), and keep it in place long enough to have an effect, and then draw conclusion. 

Frack the NRA and the pissants who parrot its talking points. No more fetishizing guns. I don't care how tiny your penis is - just go buy a muscle car for compensation. 
Lose the small penis cliche, your better than that. Also, are there any pro-gun organizations that your approve of? I'd like to join one without being ridiculed and shunned by society. Here's a few that I've heard mentioned before:
Gun Owners of America
Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (Open to everyone)
National Association of Gun Rights
Second Amendment Foundation
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 20th, 2007, 11:54 pm

April 7th, 2018, 8:28 pm #187

Here we go a step in the right direction! Now lets hope the rest of the country follows.
AP
BOSTON — Assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment, a federal judge said in a ruling Friday upholding Massachusetts' ban on the weapons.
U.S. District Judge William Young dismissed a lawsuit challenging the 20-year-old ban, saying assault weapons are military firearms that fall beyond the reach of the constitutional right to "bear arms."
Regulation of the weapons is a matter of policy, not for the courts, he said.
"Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens," Young said. "These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy."

State Attorney General Maura Healey said the ruling "vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war."
"Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools," Healey, a Democrat, said in a statement. "Families across the country should take heart in this victory."
AR-15 assault-style rifles are under increased scrutiny because of their use in several recent mass shootings, including the February massacre at a Florida high school that left 17 people dead.
The Gun Owners Gun Owners' Action League of Massachusetts and other groups that filed the lawsuit argued that the AR-15 cannot be considered a "military weapon" because it cannot fire in fully automatic mode.
But Young dismissed that argument, noting that the semi-automatic AR-15's design is based on guns "that were first manufactured for military purposes" and that the AR-15 is "common and well-known in the military."
"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to 'bear arms,'" Young wrote.
Young also upheld Healey's 2016 enforcement notice to gun sellers and manufacturers clarifying what constitutes a "copy" or "duplicate" weapon under the state's 1998 assault weapon ban, including copies of the Colt AR-15 and the Kalashnikov AK-47.

Healey's stepped-up enforcement followed the shooting rampage at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, that killed 49 patrons. She said at the time that gun manufacturers were circumventing Massachusetts' ban by selling copycat versions of the weapons they claimed complied with the law.
The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban that expired in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific and name-brand weapons and explicitly bans copies or duplicates of those weapons.
Jim Wallace, executive director of the Massachusetts gun owners group, said Young's upholding of Healey's crackdown on copycat assault weapons gives the attorney general "unbridled authority" to interpret laws as she pleases.
"Everyone in the state should be really concerned about that," Wallace said. "What if the next attorney general isn't a friend on one of your issues?"
Wallace said he couldn't yet say whether the group will appeal the ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows Americans to have guns in their homes for self-defense, blocking local governments from banning handguns.
But the court last year turned away an appeal from Maryland gun owners who challenged the state's ban on assault weapons.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2008, 8:26 pm

April 7th, 2018, 10:03 pm #188

Dun Fudgin wrote: Here we go a step in the right direction! Now lets hope the rest of the country follows.
AP
BOSTON — Assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment, a federal judge said in a ruling Friday upholding Massachusetts' ban on the weapons.
U.S. District Judge William Young dismissed a lawsuit challenging the 20-year-old ban, saying assault weapons are military firearms that fall beyond the reach of the constitutional right to "bear arms."
Regulation of the weapons is a matter of policy, not for the courts, he said.
"Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens," Young said. "These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy."

State Attorney General Maura Healey said the ruling "vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war."
"Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools," Healey, a Democrat, said in a statement. "Families across the country should take heart in this victory."
AR-15 assault-style rifles are under increased scrutiny because of their use in several recent mass shootings, including the February massacre at a Florida high school that left 17 people dead.
The Gun Owners Gun Owners' Action League of Massachusetts and other groups that filed the lawsuit argued that the AR-15 cannot be considered a "military weapon" because it cannot fire in fully automatic mode.
But Young dismissed that argument, noting that the semi-automatic AR-15's design is based on guns "that were first manufactured for military purposes" and that the AR-15 is "common and well-known in the military."
"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to 'bear arms,'" Young wrote.
Young also upheld Healey's 2016 enforcement notice to gun sellers and manufacturers clarifying what constitutes a "copy" or "duplicate" weapon under the state's 1998 assault weapon ban, including copies of the Colt AR-15 and the Kalashnikov AK-47.

Healey's stepped-up enforcement followed the shooting rampage at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, that killed 49 patrons. She said at the time that gun manufacturers were circumventing Massachusetts' ban by selling copycat versions of the weapons they claimed complied with the law.
The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban that expired in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific and name-brand weapons and explicitly bans copies or duplicates of those weapons.
Jim Wallace, executive director of the Massachusetts gun owners group, said Young's upholding of Healey's crackdown on copycat assault weapons gives the attorney general "unbridled authority" to interpret laws as she pleases.
"Everyone in the state should be really concerned about that," Wallace said. "What if the next attorney general isn't a friend on one of your issues?"
Wallace said he couldn't yet say whether the group will appeal the ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows Americans to have guns in their homes for self-defense, blocking local governments from banning handguns.
But the court last year turned away an appeal from Maryland gun owners who challenged the state's ban on assault weapons.
Why is this a move in the right direction????
Quote
Like
Share

t
Joined: August 11th, 2007, 12:04 am

April 7th, 2018, 10:35 pm #189

Fortune Cookie wrote:
t wrote:
Fortune Cookie wrote: The previous ban was not broad enough and wasn't in place long enough to be effective. 

I'm with sugar: let's try a REAL ban asnd see what happens. I'm all for having a ban that actually bans ALL weapons that can cause this kind of carnage (the previous ban most certainly did not), and keep it in place long enough to have an effect, and then draw conclusion. 

Frack the NRA and the pissants who parrot its talking points. No more fetishizing guns. I don't care how tiny your penis is - just go buy a muscle car for compensation. 
What color gun is it that is the most dangerous?

The red gun that can shoot 10 rounds per second or the blue gun that can shoot 10 rounds a second?

The AWB is a style regulation.

virtually by definition it cannot save any lives

I personally could not care less if they are banned as I do not have one or want one, but I can buy equally effective killing devices in Mass under the ban as anywhere
You are the same idiot that assured us that Hillary would beat Trump. 

Now you reinforce the evidence that you are a moron by raising frivolous issues I did not raise. Only a complete moronic jackass like you would think anyone with two neurons to rub together would think this was a worthy posting. 

Try again. 
Is this what passes for intelligence where you grew up?

All you proved is that you either cannot read or you cannot reason your way out of a wet paper bag


I think I can raise whatever issues I wish,  your inability to converse one way or the other reflects on your own ignorance
Quote
Like
Share

t
Joined: August 11th, 2007, 12:04 am

April 7th, 2018, 10:37 pm #190

tyu12 wrote:
Dun Fudgin wrote: Here we go a step in the right direction! Now lets hope the rest of the country follows.
AP
BOSTON — Assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment, a federal judge said in a ruling Friday upholding Massachusetts' ban on the weapons.
U.S. District Judge William Young dismissed a lawsuit challenging the 20-year-old ban, saying assault weapons are military firearms that fall beyond the reach of the constitutional right to "bear arms."
Regulation of the weapons is a matter of policy, not for the courts, he said.
"Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens," Young said. "These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy."

State Attorney General Maura Healey said the ruling "vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war."
"Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools," Healey, a Democrat, said in a statement. "Families across the country should take heart in this victory."
AR-15 assault-style rifles are under increased scrutiny because of their use in several recent mass shootings, including the February massacre at a Florida high school that left 17 people dead.
The Gun Owners Gun Owners' Action League of Massachusetts and other groups that filed the lawsuit argued that the AR-15 cannot be considered a "military weapon" because it cannot fire in fully automatic mode.
But Young dismissed that argument, noting that the semi-automatic AR-15's design is based on guns "that were first manufactured for military purposes" and that the AR-15 is "common and well-known in the military."
"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to 'bear arms,'" Young wrote.
Young also upheld Healey's 2016 enforcement notice to gun sellers and manufacturers clarifying what constitutes a "copy" or "duplicate" weapon under the state's 1998 assault weapon ban, including copies of the Colt AR-15 and the Kalashnikov AK-47.

Healey's stepped-up enforcement followed the shooting rampage at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, that killed 49 patrons. She said at the time that gun manufacturers were circumventing Massachusetts' ban by selling copycat versions of the weapons they claimed complied with the law.
The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban that expired in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific and name-brand weapons and explicitly bans copies or duplicates of those weapons.
Jim Wallace, executive director of the Massachusetts gun owners group, said Young's upholding of Healey's crackdown on copycat assault weapons gives the attorney general "unbridled authority" to interpret laws as she pleases.
"Everyone in the state should be really concerned about that," Wallace said. "What if the next attorney general isn't a friend on one of your issues?"
Wallace said he couldn't yet say whether the group will appeal the ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows Americans to have guns in their homes for self-defense, blocking local governments from banning handguns.
But the court last year turned away an appeal from Maryland gun owners who challenged the state's ban on assault weapons.
Why is this a move in the right direction????
Because it confirms states have the right to regulate weapons

Doesn't mean the AWB if effective, but it is within the states right to ban them if they choose
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 30th, 2007, 12:27 am

April 8th, 2018, 12:15 pm #191

It's difficult for us but was not so much for Australia as this article explains:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35048251
You make a living by what you get. You make a life by what you give..
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2008, 8:26 pm

April 8th, 2018, 3:43 pm #192

t wrote:
tyu12 wrote:
Dun Fudgin wrote: Here we go a step in the right direction! Now lets hope the rest of the country follows.
AP
BOSTON — Assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment, a federal judge said in a ruling Friday upholding Massachusetts' ban on the weapons.
U.S. District Judge William Young dismissed a lawsuit challenging the 20-year-old ban, saying assault weapons are military firearms that fall beyond the reach of the constitutional right to "bear arms."
Regulation of the weapons is a matter of policy, not for the courts, he said.
"Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens," Young said. "These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy."

State Attorney General Maura Healey said the ruling "vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war."
"Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools," Healey, a Democrat, said in a statement. "Families across the country should take heart in this victory."
AR-15 assault-style rifles are under increased scrutiny because of their use in several recent mass shootings, including the February massacre at a Florida high school that left 17 people dead.
The Gun Owners Gun Owners' Action League of Massachusetts and other groups that filed the lawsuit argued that the AR-15 cannot be considered a "military weapon" because it cannot fire in fully automatic mode.
But Young dismissed that argument, noting that the semi-automatic AR-15's design is based on guns "that were first manufactured for military purposes" and that the AR-15 is "common and well-known in the military."
"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to 'bear arms,'" Young wrote.
Young also upheld Healey's 2016 enforcement notice to gun sellers and manufacturers clarifying what constitutes a "copy" or "duplicate" weapon under the state's 1998 assault weapon ban, including copies of the Colt AR-15 and the Kalashnikov AK-47.

Healey's stepped-up enforcement followed the shooting rampage at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, that killed 49 patrons. She said at the time that gun manufacturers were circumventing Massachusetts' ban by selling copycat versions of the weapons they claimed complied with the law.
The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban that expired in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific and name-brand weapons and explicitly bans copies or duplicates of those weapons.
Jim Wallace, executive director of the Massachusetts gun owners group, said Young's upholding of Healey's crackdown on copycat assault weapons gives the attorney general "unbridled authority" to interpret laws as she pleases.
"Everyone in the state should be really concerned about that," Wallace said. "What if the next attorney general isn't a friend on one of your issues?"
Wallace said he couldn't yet say whether the group will appeal the ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows Americans to have guns in their homes for self-defense, blocking local governments from banning handguns.
But the court last year turned away an appeal from Maryland gun owners who challenged the state's ban on assault weapons.
Why is this a move in the right direction????
Because it confirms states have the right to regulate weapons

Doesn't mean the AWB if effective, but it is within the states right to ban them if they choose
guns are already restricted such no automatic weapons are allowed or certain barrel lengths and magazine size. Mass bans just about everything 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

April 8th, 2018, 9:15 pm #193

In Vermont:  State legislation that [Gov.] Scott is expected to sign would raise the legal age for gun purchases, extend mandatory background checks to private gun sales; and ban the sale of high-capacity magazines and “bump-stocks” (devices that greatly increase the firing rate of an semi-automatic rifle).

The new law would do little else to restrict Vermonters’ relatively relaxed right to own and carry firearms.

https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/sto ... 490017002/

And yet, locked and loaded they came to protest.

Is there something reasonably object-able to the Vermont regulations that I'm missing?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 27th, 2011, 4:12 pm

April 8th, 2018, 10:07 pm #194

Here's some info on private gun sales in case anyone is interested.
https://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/2016 ... explained/
Quote
Like
Share

t
Joined: August 11th, 2007, 12:04 am

April 9th, 2018, 7:53 am #195

gator wrote: Here's some info on private gun sales in case anyone is interested.
https://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/2016 ... explained/
Problem is,other than noting a few restrictions in some states, there are few useful facts in that article.

I can see no downside to legal gun owners having private transactions go through the background check process.

It is not going to stop anyone who is able to legally own a  gun.

Opposition to this is why the NRA is full of crap
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2008, 8:26 pm

April 9th, 2018, 8:59 am #196

Cathy (Admin) wrote: In Vermont:  State legislation that [Gov.] Scott is expected to sign would raise the legal age for gun purchases, extend mandatory background checks to private gun sales; and ban the sale of high-capacity magazines and “bump-stocks” (devices that greatly increase the firing rate of an semi-automatic rifle).

The new law would do little else to restrict Vermonters’ relatively relaxed right to own and carry firearms.

https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/sto ... 490017002/

And yet, locked and loaded they came to protest.

Is there something reasonably object-able to the Vermont regulations that I'm missing?
yes, they want to raise the age to purchase a rifle they want to limit magazine capacities. What is your opinion on raising the voting age to 21 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

April 9th, 2018, 10:55 am #197

There is such a vast difference in maturity and awareness levels among young adults - say, 16 - 24 years old - that setting an age requirement for young adults on any issue is difficult at best and the arguments are endless.

If someone is old enough to enlist, shouldn't they be allowed to drink?  If the voting age is raised to 21, should anyone under the age of 21 be tried as a juvenile?

Drink, smoke, consent, vote, enlist, marry, buy a gun, be tried as a juvenile, etc. - should there be a single age limit that applies to all of that?  I don't know.

There is an argument that with gun ownership and drinking there is a higher risk of being a danger to other people and a higher age limit is for the protection of other people not just the owner or user.

Interesting fact:  U. S. Code actually defines militia:  

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

So if we're going to go all 2nd amendment, the unorganized militia who can own guns can be 17 but must be male and should surrender them when they turn 45 and non U.S. citizens need only to declare an intention to become a citizen. :-)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 22nd, 2007, 10:06 pm

April 9th, 2018, 12:42 pm #198

 There is a problem with taking that law literally, because it also specifies "able-bodied males".  Oh.  Women are not part of the militia so are not allowed to have guns?  I must assume there is legislation somewhere that adds women to the National Guard, but not necessarily to the militia.  The originalists on the Supreme Court can have fun with that.

(The reference to 32USC313 is about veterans under the age of 64.)

peregrine
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 27th, 2011, 4:12 pm

April 10th, 2018, 8:13 pm #199

 Not seeing much in the media, but there will be a nationwide, 2nd Amendment Rally April 14th at all State Capitols. Looks like 2PM for the Eastern Time Zone.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2008, 8:26 pm

April 12th, 2018, 10:36 am #200

Karly wrote: I go back and forth on it, BI.  Tyu...serious or trolling us.  Do you know something I don't...because mostly I land on he/she is serious.  
Don't you think I am serious when I say law abiding citizens should not lose
their guns because of a couple of nuts and a few shootings? I am very serious about that, as I believe that you are serious about taking guns
Quote
Like
Share