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.
Anyone know what those are? Do you power the gun by passing gas or something?
Another know nothing clown trying to sound like he's Jeff Cooper reincarnated. "Gas Operated", "gas assisted." Just took the tech sounding use of "gas" and tried to run with it. Kinda like a toddler running whilst holding a kitchen knife he swiped off the counter while Mom and Dad weren't looking. Managed to fall on that sharp implement too.
Some people should not be allowed anything sharper than a Crayon, or access to any technical information about firearms. This just goes down on the list of terms used by rabid anti 2A types like "semi automatic revolver", and a new classic I saw the other day on the news where a reporter was firing an AR at an indoor range and asked the RO what he needed to do to "put it in semi auto mode." Wow...just...wow.
Maybe if that person had supported politicians willing to compromise, instead of fanatics, it wouldn't have been an issue.
Classic case of projection. The ideologues here are the pro-gun people who refuse to come up with any kind of sensible regulations.
Now you've got people like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who knows nothing about guns, leading the charge. All because the pro-gun crowd is being intransigent about this, acting incapable of leadership and compromise, and failing to respond realistically to a major set of crises.
Was there a compromise offered beyond the elimination of either all firearms or particular ones being part of the equation?
Short of invading peoples rights to privacy and doctor patient privilege, how does one go about asking if people are mentally fragile ?
Ill thought out and extreme examples of firearm restrictions just serve to entrench people who might otherwise "compromise" when serious discussions could/would have taken place. Declaring war before having discussions seems counterproductive.
I think the intended "HAHA, look at the silly Democrat" theme backfired, if you'll pardon the expression.
Yep, which is funny since normally the right uses their absurd trivia knowledge of firearms to "prove" how harmless they are, like that goofy post on here last week that attempted to "prove" that because an AR-15 is not the most deadly weapon one can buy, somehow that means we should all be allowed to own one... right...
Some people should not be allowed anything sharper than a Crayon, or access to any technical information about firearms. This just goes down on the list of terms used by rabid anti 2A types like "semi automatic revolver", and a new classic I saw the other day on the news where a reporter was firing an AR at an indoor range and asked the RO what he needed to do to "put it in semi auto mode." Wow...just...wow.
With all due respect, one does not have to know exactly how a main battle tank operates to understand that people shouldn't be allowed to own one. Similarly, one does not have to fully understand how alcohol affects the body - complete with medical journals on the topic! - to know that people shouldn't be driving drunk.
I am very tired of the far-right defending their "guns for all, no questions asked!" policies with gun trivia. One does not need to know the exact firing rate of an AK-47 or AR-15 to know that such weapons can kill more people in a given amount of time than a revolver, for example.
Was there a compromise offered beyond the elimination of either all firearms or particular ones being part of the equation?
yes. the history of gun control legislation is very, very long and has involved a huge variety of attempts. many of them have failed by design, i.e. by sabotage.
Quote:
Short of invading peoples rights to privacy and doctor patient privilege, how does one go about asking if people are mentally fragile ?
wait, what? i missed where the discussion shifted to psychology, i thought we were talking about a senator wanting to ban "Gas assisted firearms."
Quote:
Ill thought out and extreme examples of firearm restrictions just serve to entrench people who might otherwise "compromise" when serious discussions could/would have taken place. Declaring war before having discussions seems counterproductive.
it appears to me that any attempts at serious discussions (that is, compromise) have been rejected by the pro-gun crowd.
i mean their argument is more or less a sort of religious-style interpretation of the language in the second amendment. this intransigence isn't new, it has been going on for decades.
from a political perspective this is sort of like a strongarm maneuver. your might vs. their might, no compromise, only one winner. So if that's the game they want to play, then ok -- that's what we'll play. There's a lot of us out there who own guns, who *like* guns, but consider it a moral obligation to support gun control.
I suppose if your leisurely hunting a single hog a 12 gauge would do, but in some areas there are 10's of thousands of wild hogs causing billions in damage that need to be culled. Now I don't know about you but if I need to cull out a few hundred hogs I'm bringing my AR.
RR
And when I surprise a burrow of rabbits I hope to get more than one, so I need my semi-auto 22.
With all due respect, one does not have to know exactly how a main battle tank operates to understand that people shouldn't be allowed to own one. Similarly, one does not have to fully understand how alcohol affects the body - complete with medical journals on the topic! - to know that people shouldn't be driving drunk.
I am very tired of the far-right defending their "guns for all, no questions asked!" policies with gun trivia. One does not need to know the exact firing rate of an AK-47 or AR-15 to know that such weapons can kill more people in a given amount of time than a revolver, for example.
Uh, that just shows you know nothing about guns. A revolver and an AR 15 both fire at the same exact rate, one shot per trigger pull. And many people can load a revolver just as fast.
yes. the history of gun control legislation is very, very long and has involved a huge variety of attempts. many of them have failed by design, i.e. by sabotage.
wait, what? i missed where the discussion shifted to psychology, i thought we were talking about a senator wanting to ban "Gas assisted firearms."
it appears to me that any attempts at serious discussions (that is, compromise) have been rejected by the pro-gun crowd.
i mean their argument is more or less a sort of religious-style interpretation of the language in the second amendment. this intransigence isn't new, it has been going on for decades.
from a political perspective this is sort of like a strongarm maneuver. your might vs. their might, no compromise, only one winner. So if that's the game they want to play, then ok -- that's what we'll play. There's a lot of us out there who own guns, who *like* guns, but consider it a moral obligation to support gun control.
You talk about "compromise". Let me tell you about what " compromise" meant in Maryland a few years ago.
There was a bill to ban AR platforms. A compromise was struck that allowed them to remain but potential owners had to go through the same process that was already in place to buy handguns with an addition to both requiring fingerprinting. The Maryland State Police retained the background check and denial authority. No reason has to be given for denial.
Two days after the bill was signed Delegate CT Wilson (D-Charles), with the support of then Senator now Attorney General Brian Frosh, pre-filed a bill to ban "the most dangerous and deadly firearms now available in the State". Those " dangerous and deadly firearms"? Pump action and semiautomatic shotguns used for hunting.
That's one reason why gun owners are now wary of "compromise". Because we've learned that " compromise" always ends up with that follow up.
Oh, the bill didn't pass but it's been filed most years since. It gets a little more support every year so eventually it will be passed.
This year's major gun control initiative is to require anyone loaning someone a gun, at gun ranges, for hunting, wherever, has to run that loan through the NICS check.
So you agree that the pro-gun side is unwilling to compromise, then? That's the sort of obstinance I'm talking about.
If one guy from the Maryland state legislature can erode your entire capacity to compromise on the subject, that really speaks to its fragility.
It's not "just one guy". Did you skip the part where the legislation has been dropped most years since and gains more support each year? Or that one of the original cosponsors is now in a position to unilaterally promulgate regulations?
Honest people would call what happened " negotiating in bad faith".
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.
"Gas Operated", "gas assisted." Just took the tech sounding use of "gas" and tried to run with it. Kinda like a toddler running whilst holding a kitchen knife he swiped off the counter while Mom and Dad weren't looking. Managed to fall on that sharp implement too. 
Wow...just...wow.
