U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Hobbies and Recreation > Guns and Hunting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-11-2013, 10:47 AM
 
1,229 posts, read 949,405 times
Reputation: 666

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle View Post
Mag ban has zero chance of passing. The Republicans are done negotiating with Obama on anything after his bad faith negotiations during the fiscal cliff debacle. The Republican House sure as hell won't give in on guns considering their constituents would give them the boot in about 30 seconds if they do.
No its not done. Many republicans have said they support an assault weapons ban. I think a mag ban could pass. Is it likely? Maybe not but if enough people push like the adds that made the new senator form SD back down from Sundays comment that she did not support a ban than we could lose this fight. If I had to be I would agree with you, but I don't like the odds being so small on our side. The majority of Americans want a mag ban. We can't fight up hill forever. We have to gain some of the high ground and openly carrying guns, Nugent saying suck on my AR Obama and Hillary does absolutely nothing but make us look like Alex Jones wing nuts.

 
Old 01-11-2013, 10:48 AM
 
11,593 posts, read 17,544,082 times
Reputation: 17291
Quote:
Originally Posted by itlltickleurinnerds View Post
It is attitudes like this and Texas that have made the Republican party the party of exclusion and that can not win an election. They have stuck to extreme principals so hard that they have excluded large segments of the Nation. I don't care if your definition of an Assault weapon is a cartridge in-between a battle rifle and sub machine gun and select fire bla bla bla. You can cry about that all the way to a gov. turn in. You remind me of all the idiots who whine about the 16th amendment is not legal bla bla bla, well guess what, don't pay your taxes and they take your home and put you in jail. This idea we don't play ball is just stupid. I am not saying to give up the farm, but we don't have to poke a stick at people by carrying an AR around in public.

I would bet tomorrows rent money that not one thats NOT 1!!! person saw these two guys and thought, now there goes a couple of upstanding men with assault weapons, I guess they are OK. But I also be the same rent money that there are people reading the article or who saw them that said, WTF is this crap? We need to stop this. So you have done nothing to help and everything to hurt.
As I said, The West Boro Baptist chruch has done more to hurt the first amendment than help support it.
I don't get your response - an attitude of what - defining the English Language? You totally lost me.

assault rifle (noun)
1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
 
Old 01-11-2013, 10:51 AM
 
1,229 posts, read 949,405 times
Reputation: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasRedneck View Post
Then call me stupid.....because every time we retreat in the face of a "reasonable" restriction, they come back for more.

I'd suggest that those supporting "reasonable" further restrictions grow a backbone.

Colorado - both theatre and school - gun-free zones
Sandy Hook - a state with some of the strictest gun-control laws in the nation - gun-free zone

Time and again, nuts drive legislation detrimental to the freedom of the law-abiding. Every time someone uses a firearm in the commission of a crime, they have broken AT LEAST one federal gun law....how many are ACTUALLY prosecuted for that? Few to none!
You are conflating the post. I never said that there should not be armed guards at schools or teachers who do not carry. Not the point at all. Its not the point of what gun laws are good or bad. My point is we can act like these idiots in the article and look like extreme nuts who need to be jailed or we can act like responsible citizens who care about the gun violence in the nation and want to do what we can without banning weapons than we have just become the modern Republican party where we are a small tent in the middle of no where thumping our chest about how principled we are while others decide what is legal and what is not.
 
Old 01-11-2013, 10:53 AM
 
11,593 posts, read 17,544,082 times
Reputation: 17291
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle View Post
There's a fundamental lack of knowledge about firearms in the national media. The fact that they still don't know the difference between clips/magazines, automatic/semiautomatic and the fact that their focus is primarily on rifles that are hardly used in crimes is all we need to know about their expertise on the issue.
I know it, it irks me to no end because they do a diservice to the debate of gun violence. You know the amount of murders that have occured with true assualt rifles in the last 50 or so year? - one, by a police officer I think.
 
Old 01-11-2013, 10:53 AM
 
8,158 posts, read 5,726,574 times
Reputation: 11585
No, it's done - there won't be bans of any sort (at least not legislative bans). Possibly some sort of tightening of background checks and gun show loopholes, but not bans.

Senators are different than House members because Senators represent all voters in a state. The House is made up of highly ideological, gerrymandered districts. People might get mad at a House Rep for not voting for a ban, but chances are that isn't their House Rep. For example, I don't like Pelosi, but she isn't my rep. Her constituents love her.

Republican house reps voting for any kind of gun ban would be political suicide. See 1994 for more details.
 
Old 01-11-2013, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Spots Wyoming
18,696 posts, read 35,475,159 times
Reputation: 2147483647
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle View Post
There's a fundamental lack of knowledge about firearms in the national media. The fact that they still don't know the difference between clips/magazines, automatic/semiautomatic and the fact that their focus is primarily on rifles that are hardly used in crimes is all we need to know about their expertise on the issue.
You don't have to go that far. There is a fundamental lack of knowledge about firearms with so called, gun owners, on this forum.

I really don't see what the big problem is. I guess if you live in an area that has supressed your fundamental rights, as a Citizen, to make people fear such things, then I guess you need to move. I won't say that I see 2 guys walking down the street with rifles, very often, but I see rifles, EVERY DAY, out in public and there are no women and grandmothers grabbing their kids and ducking for cover. Of course, I live in an area that almost every pickup truck you see has a rifle rack and most have a rifle, or shotgun, or both in the rack. I often see people walking out to their vehicles with a rifle in their hands.

I think the biggest thing about this article is if people understand that the police did NOT stop them from doing so, nor did they take their weapons away from them. Maybe if there is a little more exposure, some of the "cry babys" will stop whining about those terrible guns and all the damage they do while they are being carried, legally, by two people, not doing anything wrong.
__________________
[B][COLOR="Red"]"No Copyrighted Material."[/COLOR][/B]
[URL="http://www.city-data.com/"][COLOR="SeaGreen"]CD Home page[/COLOR][/URL], [URL="http://www.city-data.com/forumtos.html"][COLOR="seagreen"]TOS (Terms of Service)[/COLOR][/URL], [URL="http://www.city-data.com/forum/faq/107997-search-function-using-search-function.html"][COLOR="SeaGreen"]How to Search,[/COLOR][/URL] [URL="http://www.city-data.com/forum/faq/"][COLOR="SeaGreen"]FAQ's[/COLOR][/URL], [URL="http://www.city-data.com/forum/faq/70589-guide-guide-city-data-posting.html"][COLOR="SeaGreen"]Guide[/COLOR][/URL]
[URL="http://www.city-data.com/forum/wyoming/"]Wyoming[/URL], [URL="http://www.city-data.com/forum/montana/"]Montana[/URL], [URL="http://www.city-data.com/forum/north-dakota/"]North Dakota[/URL], [URL="http://www.city-data.com/forum/south-dakota/"]South Dakota[/URL], [URL="http://www.city-data.com/forum/guns-hunting/"]Guns and Hunting[/URL]
 
Old 01-11-2013, 10:58 AM
 
1,229 posts, read 949,405 times
Reputation: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
I don't get your response - an attitude of what - defining the English Language? You totally lost me.

assault rifle (noun)
1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
That is only one definition, here is what Webster says

[Assault Rifle] 1.any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

The point is that it does not mater, let me say that again IT DOES NOT MATER WHAT THE DEFINITION IS TO YOU, WHEN THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE VIEW ASSAULT WEAPON AS A SEMI AUTO MILITARY STYLE RIFLE. This stupid argument that assault weapon means this or that, you can argue that and you are the only ones preaching to the choir and no one else cares. Don't you get it? The press does not care that you don't agree, they don't care about your specific definition of assault weapon, like I said you can sit in the field alone and thump your chest while Obama signs a law making your semi auto illegal saying how assault is a selective fire bla bla bla. WTF don't many gun owners not get that no one out side of gun people gives a rats ass what your specific definition of Assault rifle means?
 
Old 01-11-2013, 11:03 AM
 
1,229 posts, read 949,405 times
Reputation: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElkHunter View Post
You don't have to go that far. There is a fundamental lack of knowledge about firearms with so called, gun owners, on this forum.

I really don't see what the big problem is. I guess if you live in an area that has supressed your fundamental rights, as a Citizen, to make people fear such things, then I guess you need to move. I won't say that I see 2 guys walking down the street with rifles, very often, but I see rifles, EVERY DAY, out in public and there are no women and grandmothers grabbing their kids and ducking for cover. Of course, I live in an area that almost every pickup truck you see has a rifle rack and most have a rifle, or shotgun, or both in the rack. I often see people walking out to their vehicles with a rifle in their hands.

I think the biggest thing about this article is if people understand that the police did NOT stop them from doing so, nor did they take their weapons away from them. Maybe if there is a little more exposure, some of the "cry babys" will stop whining about those terrible guns and all the damage they do while they are being carried, legally, by two people, not doing anything wrong.
You live in Wyoming, a state that has less population than most medium cities. Your state does not decide much of what happens in the nation as far as laws go. I lived In Pinedale for a year and can say, yes in Wyoming I would see people walking down the street with a 357 strapped to their hip and no one thought much of it. But your state does not decide who gets elected on a national level and is about as influential as North Dakota. Arkansas has 8 times the population as Wyoming and is not a real influential state. If you don't see the difference of someone walking down the street of Big Piney with a rifle and Portland OR, than I can not help you.
 
Old 01-11-2013, 11:07 AM
 
8,158 posts, read 5,726,574 times
Reputation: 11585
itlltickleurinnerds, I think you have bought into the media narrative that the majority of the US population has decided they want more restrictive gun laws. The fact is that not much has changed. The division is still primarily regional in difference. Idahoans are not clamoring for more restrictive laws and New Yorkers are by and large not asking for more lenient ones.

In other words, it's the same as it has been for decades: people in the cities want tougher gun laws and people in "flyover country" or rural areas want less restrictive laws. Wyoming has a firearms protection act in its legislature while Cuomo is NY is trying to pass some of the most restrictive laws in the country.
 
Old 01-11-2013, 11:14 AM
 
1,229 posts, read 949,405 times
Reputation: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle View Post
itlltickleurinnerds, I think you have bought into the media narrative that the majority of the US population has decided they want more restrictive gun laws. The fact is that not much has changed. The division is still primarily regional in difference. Idahoans are not clamoring for more restrictive laws and New Yorkers are by and large not asking for more lenient ones.

In other words, it's the same as it has been for decades: people in the cities want tougher gun laws and people in "flyover country" or rural areas want less restrictive laws. Wyoming has a firearms protection act in its legislature while Cuomo is NY is trying to pass some of the most restrictive laws in the country.
Not ture, 80 percent of Americans want a ban on High Cap mags. Some 70 percent of NRA members say they support some gun control.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Hobbies and Recreation > Guns and Hunting
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top