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.
That's not what the Ds are pushing. Rs election campaigns are funded by NRA. GOP has no interest in reducing the mass part of mass killings and alienating their Sugar Daddy..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven
Those who rag on the NRA continuously, are you aware of exactly what the NRA really IS??
Yes they are aware, but the NRA serves as a nice boogeyman for them and a good way to avoid having to discuss the legitimate concerns about certain proposals...
They just say "ah, well, they are bought and paid for by the NRA" and therefore, anything the person might say or argue after that can just be dismissed out of hand, because "it's just NRA talking points"...
It's the Left's way of winning an argument without ever having to actually debate the issues.
Between this thread and another that include more comments than I have time or inclination to retort, I will simply point out that it seems almost impossible for me to keep the focus where I think it needs to be, or yes, any further exchange is more pointless than usual...
1) I am not the one to decide any of what might be included and/or decided upon when it comes to gun control. The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone, nothing more and nothing less. I am simply asking the questions I do for the sake of considering what gun control is possible or reasonable. If the argument is that the 2A, for example, prohibits such consideration and/or definition as to which weapons will be banned or not, then obviously there is no further argument.
2) If the argument is that bad guys will get the banned guns anyway, then again no further argument, as I have noted more than a few times before despite what seems a general inability to note or comprehend accordingly.
3) IF, however, anyone should consider gun control measures or possibilities in light of what politicians are forced to do in response to public outrage over the likes of mass murder acts of terrorism with a gun, and/or the exceptional level of gun violence in America, then I have simply tried to define the goal and ban as follows:
Ban/Goal: restrict the sale of weapons that have a "kill rate" beyond a certain level. Obviously this level is highly subjective, but at least a number that can be negotiated in light of the same figuring that went into the ban of these sorts of "assault" weapons already. Agreed, "assault" is too vague or confusing a term. Instead, define and/or ban according to a specific "kill rate" and/or capability -- that might bring general or majority consensus such that the public is assuaged and gun enthusiasts are still able to hunt, sport and/or protect themselves from reasonable threat.
Again (and again), yes bad guys will get these guns anyway and yes, there is no real way to prevent such acts of terrorism, but IF there is the possibility of preventing even one more act of terrorism by way of such a ban and/or IF the idea is just as much to satisfy the effort to exhaust every reasonable effort, then THIS is what I'm suggesting is the most reasonable manner if not the only manner in which to get there.
This whole "kill rate" argument doesn't make a lot of sense. There is no gun on the market with any kind of set "kill rate".... The amount of people a person with any kind of gun can kill is wholly dependant on a number of different variables. For example, the Aurora shooter killed 12 people in a theater with an AR15 and a 100 round drum magazine. By contrast, the Navy Yard shooter killed 13 people with a Remington 870 shotgun that holds 8 rounds, and that's if an extended magazine is used.
You'd perhaps make better sense to base your arguments on rate of fire and round capacity, but even that becomes a little redundant after considerring the two examples I provided above.
I have never shot the sig, but from what I saw it works much like the AR. In fact it takes AR uppers. The big difference is that the return spring is not housed in the butt stock but works a lot like the German Walther p38. In feel you may not feel recoil as much not that the AR has much but its right next to your face and shoulder. The other difference is that because the springs are below the Bolt carrier group you can have a stock that folds up or collapses much shorter. All in all it will function just as an AR15
I think another important point to make is, the gun fanatics, you know, the guys who buy the biggest baddest guns on the market, that are out in the woods shooting up junk cars and cans and bottles and watermelons, blasting away for the pure erotic pleasure of it. They, are not the ones committing mass murders or sniping victims from the high ground. I doubt that ANYBODY short of a swat team could get within 10 feet of their arsenal. From that aspect, they're more responsible gun owners than the mom who let's her mentally ill son have access to weapons or an angry Arab American with a grudge to settle. So the conversation shouldn't start and end with firepower, it's a lot tougher than that, but unfortunately (or intentionally) this problem has been completely politicized, this is cultural not political.
Between this thread and another that include more comments than I have time or inclination to retort, I will simply point out that it seems almost impossible for me to keep the focus where I think it needs to be, or yes, any further exchange is more pointless than usual...
1) I am not the one to decide any of what might be included and/or decided upon when it comes to gun control. The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone, nothing more and nothing less. I am simply asking the questions I do for the sake of considering what gun control is possible or reasonable. If the argument is that the 2A, for example, prohibits such consideration and/or definition as to which weapons will be banned or not, then obviously there is no further argument.
2) If the argument is that bad guys will get the banned guns anyway, then again no further argument, as I have noted more than a few times before despite what seems a general inability to note or comprehend accordingly.
3) IF, however, anyone should consider gun control measures or possibilities in light of what politicians are forced to do in response to public outrage over the likes of mass murder acts of terrorism with a gun, and/or the exceptional level of gun violence in America, then I have simply tried to define the goal and ban as follows:
Ban/Goal: restrict the sale of weapons that have a "kill rate" beyond a certain level. Obviously this level is highly subjective, but at least a number that can be negotiated in light of the same figuring that went into the ban of these sorts of "assault" weapons already. Agreed, "assault" is too vague or confusing a term. Instead, define and/or ban according to a specific "kill rate" and/or capability -- that might bring general or majority consensus such that the public is assuaged and gun enthusiasts are still able to hunt, sport and/or protect themselves from reasonable threat.
Again (and again), yes bad guys will get these guns anyway and yes, there is no real way to prevent such acts of terrorism, but IF there is the possibility of preventing even one more act of terrorism by way of such a ban and/or IF the idea is just as much to satisfy the effort to exhaust every reasonable effort, then THIS is what I'm suggesting is the most reasonable manner if not the only manner in which to get there.
WTH did I just read.... more experts that no nothing about the topic. I want my 2 minutes back.
The GOP is OWNED by the NRA. So don't expect anything to come from this Orlando massacre.
#IAmTheNRA
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.
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.
I think you skipped school a lil too much.
