One huge political difference between Dems and Reps...

[francoHFW]

Weapons of war easily accessible for ANYONE who has a few bucks to waste....

Communications of war easily accessible to ANYONE who has a few bucks to waste results in all of us having to listen to you piss and moan constantly.

Tell you what my fragile, little snowflake. If you progressives will agree to surrender your 1st Amendment rights and we’ll agree to surrender our 2nd Amendment rights. Deal?

80% to 90% agree that background checks are important and guns should not be automatic. There are limits on both amendments. I think we should leave them up to the Supreme Court... And not NRA lobbyists and bought off GOP politicians.

 

[P@triot]

You mean upholding the constitution? Crazy Republicans. How dare they not take away our rights without due process!

Moron.....there is NOTHING in the Constitution to prevent a state's secession from the union.....YET, we had a fucking civil war to prevent something that the Constitution does not state.

There is some fine “liberal logic”. If the U.S. Constitution was violated one time it should be violated all the time.

Natalie is the biggest tool on USMB...

 

[P@triot]

Republicans = lets give everything to the rich and fuck the other 80% of the country.

^^^^ how ignorant progressives actually view things in their ignorance.

SuckingCocks here actually believes that respecting the U.S. Constitution, facilitating liberty, and leaving people alone is actually “giving” “everything” to the rich.

That is the demented views of a pure idiot communist there.

 

[P@triot]

Democrats = Regulate the rich to respect the rest of the country and attempt to bring up the other 80%.

And by “bring up”, SuckingCocks here means bring all of society down into poverty so that everyone is “equal”.

You guys sure did a bang up job “bringing up” everyone with Obamacare...

 

[P@triot]

Democrats = Regulate the rich to respect the rest of the country and attempt to bring up the other 80%.

You know what you should do, SuckingCocks? You should attempt to leave everyone the fuck alone as the U.S. Constitution dictates. You should respect liberty instead of being a lazy, greedy little fucking parasite. Just say’n...

 

[Nosmo King]

Nothing is perfect. But seeking the perfect is the enemy of the possible.

Seeking the possible is the enemy of liberty. You can take your irrational, emotional, crybaby ass and leave if the U.S. is just to skeeery for you.

I’m so tired of listening to the emotional knee-jerk reaction of progressive pussies...

And what does it say for those of you who refuse to see the havoc weapons designed for war create on our streets? You want such weapons for what purpose? They augment what God short changed you? They make you feel cool?

It certainly isn't for hunting. You can defend yourself with a hand gun. Are you just another hammer headed Dirty Harry wannabe?

 

[nat4900]

I’m so tired of listening to the emotional knee-jerk reaction of progressive pussies..

Then go back to your other hobby....like lighting crosses on people's yards....LOL

 

[FA_Q2]

My position is to ban all semi-automatic firing systems, permit only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shotguns. I'm willing to compromise on some semi-automatic firing systems. That's my compromise. What's yours?

Your position still indicates what you want ... And what you are willing to compromise is not something you can 'provide'.
You cannot say you are willing to give up something you don't have as a compromise ...

Simple Analogy:
You walk up and say we are going to wear the same color shirt, and you are willing to make it the color blue and not the color red as a compromise.
Your choice of blue instead of red isn't a compromise ... Because we never agreed you had the right to say we would wear the same color shirt, much less get to pick the color.

.

You left out the greater point though - gun rights advocates HAVE compromised. Over and over again. Gun ownership and sales is one of the most regulated transactions out there this very moment.

That compromise HAS NOT WORKED. It is asinine to demand that more compromise on those rights is warranted because it just has not worked yet.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'd give citizens a five year amnesty program to turn in existing semi-automatics for a cash buy back. If they have not sold back their guns in five years, every discharge of a semi-automatic would garner a mandatory ten year federal prison sentence.

There is only 1 problem - it is not illegal to own a semi-automatic weapon, and banning them would NOT have prevented the Vegas attack (IMO).

The millionaire murderer could still perpetrate the shooting with other weapons, and he could still have gotten semi-automatic weapons / automatic weapons from criminals who ignore the law.

Do you see a correlation between the flooding of American streets with the infamous 'Saturday Night Specials' in the 1970s and an increase in gun violence?

Laws are not panaceas. Speeders still prowl the roads in spite of speed limit laws. But enforcement of speed limits have proven to reduce highway deaths.

No law will prevent those with means from obtaining illegal weapons. But surely it can be said they will reduce the numbers of gun tragedies.

Nothing is perfect. But seeking the perfect is the enemy of the possible.

No, surely it cannot be said. You make that conjecture as though it is a given when, in fact, it is not. Further gun control has not resulted in any meaningful reduction in death rates almost anywhere on the planet after being tried over and over again.

No one is seeking perfection here - we are seeking results and banning or regulating guns does not result in better outcomes precisely because people like the Vegas shooter do not abide by the law. This is even a more unique situation considering that this individual had the resources to obtain virtually anything he wanted in order to cause that death and destruction - its legality was meaningless.

Further, you cannot even establish that the 'automatic' nature of his weapons had anything to do with the effectiveness of the shooting in of itself. There is a reason that the military took automatics off the field for the average soldier - they are not very effective at killing the enemy. Automatic weapons are suppression tools by nature.

 

[FA_Q2]

Bans have to be everywhere or else they don't work. Duh

Yup - rest assured when guns are banned EVERYWHERE in this country no criminals anywhere in the US will have one.

Nobody says anything about banning guns except for right-wing dupes and their silly b******* propaganda machine...

Nope, only right wingers say such things....

Close the gun show loophole. Background checks on a national database. Ban semi-automatic firing systems.

I didn't ask what you wanted to happen ... I asked what was your compromise.
Getting everything you want isn't any kind of compromise ...

.

My position is to ban all semi-automatic firing systems, permit only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shotguns. I'm willing to compromise on some semi-automatic firing systems. That's my compromise. What's yours?

You don't even have to leave the thread to see that you are lying through your teeth. Such rank dishonesty.

 

[FA_Q2]

How about the NORMAL American people who have extremely more common sense that partisanship or 'special interest money' coming in get together - leave all those who fit that description out of it - and play 'let's make a deal' --

Supporters of the 2nd Amendment / the NRA will agree to make Bump Stocks, kits that make semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons, silencers, and armor piercing rounds illegal and will agree to find a way to have background checks for all gun sales (to include private citizen sellers if humanly possible so Uncle Joe can sell his squirrel gun to his farmer neighbor)

... and in return ...

Pro-Abortionists will agree to ban barbaric late-term abortions....

whattaya say?

Nope - one has nothing to do with the other and giving up rights to appease those that want them is never acceptable.

 

[francoHFW]

Bans have to be everywhere or else they don't work. Duh

Yup - rest assured when guns are banned EVERYWHERE in this country no criminals anywhere in the US will have one.

Nobody says anything about banning guns except for right-wing dupes and their silly b******* propaganda machine...

Nope, only right wingers say such things....

Close the gun show loophole. Background checks on a national database. Ban semi-automatic firing systems.

I didn't ask what you wanted to happen ... I asked what was your compromise.
Getting everything you want isn't any kind of compromise ...

.

My position is to ban all semi-automatic firing systems, permit only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shotguns. I'm willing to compromise on some semi-automatic firing systems. That's my compromise. What's yours?

You don't even have to leave the thread to see that you are lying through your teeth. Such rank dishonesty.

That's what I said by the way...

 

[BlackSand]

You left out the greater point though - gun rights advocates HAVE compromised. Over and over again. Gun ownership and sales is one of the most regulated transactions out there this very moment.

That compromise HAS NOT WORKED. It is asinine to demand that more compromise on those rights is warranted because it just has not worked yet.

I didn't really leave it out ... Just accepted there is nothing I can do about what has already been given up.

I completely understand the attempts to stack regulations and restrictions on top of each other ... Slowly chipping away at the resolve of others.
If each measures fails, they go to the next until we are left at the mercy of the government ... Nothing more than victims.

I guess I don't worry about it so much ... Because I know what is going to happen when they tell the 80 year old man down the road he cannot keep his M1 Garand.
It ain't gonna be pretty ... There won't be any winners ... And the ensuing shit storm will be worse than most people imagine.

.

 

[Thinker101]

Silencers cannot be used on automatic weapons and are not effective on high powered rifles, this OP needs to stop having an opinion until he addresses his/her ignorance on this subject.

Ignorance really? Let me get this straight. If a lunatic use a gun fitted with silencers to kill innocent people—— Is that acceptable? Just imagine a lunatic shooting people without hearing a gun shot. How will others determine there is a shooting going on? Instead of running or ducking —— they just sit still.

Of how convenient.

You obviously have no clue in regards to silencers, so you ought to stop while your ahead.

Instead of posting nonsense —— Tell me what I missed. Nimrod.

Well, based on some of your other posts you missed the last 30 years.

 

[P@triot]

And what does it say for those of you who refuse to see the havoc weapons designed for war create on our streets?

It says that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed me liberty - not total security.

Now...what does it say about you that you are too shortsighted amd too focused on an agenda to realize this man had a pilot’s license and if he had crashed a plane into the crowd, there would be 2,000 dead instead of a measly (in context) 59?

 

[P@triot]

I’m so tired of listening to the emotional knee-jerk reaction of progressive pussies..

Then go back to your other hobby....like lighting crosses on people's yards....LOL

Wow...the pussy speaks. Well Natalie - the founders could never have imagined a global communications system with instantaneously, real-time communications allowing for dangerous fake news, the defamation of character, and the ability to spread propaganda (in other words - all of the shit you engage in here). As such, it’s time to drop the “outdated” 1st Amendment. Please shut down your computer, power off your phone, and go the fuck away. Failure to do so will expose you as the lying hypocrite with an agenda that you actually are.

 

[Nosmo King]

And what does it say for those of you who refuse to see the havoc weapons designed for war create on our streets?

It says that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed me liberty - not total security.

Now...what does it say about you that you are too shortsighted amd too focused on an agenda to realize this man had a pilot’s license and if he had crashed a plane into the crowd, there would be 2,000 dead instead of a measly (in context) 59?

And yet he fired guns. Speculation may be a fun parlor game, but it serves no purpose here.

How is your liberty infringed by being not permitted to bear any arm developed? Would such sweeping "liberties" essentially endanger the majority? Would a government be seen as ensuring the domestic tranquility by enabling anyone with means to own a rocket propgrenade launcher, a flamethrower, a thermonuclear warhead?

 

[P@triot]

Do you see a correlation between the flooding of American streets with the infamous 'Saturday Night Specials' in the 1970s and an increase in gun violence?

What is tragic is that you fail to see that Charlie “Lucky” Luciano, Meyer Lansky, Al “Scarface” Capone, and others riddled the streets of New York and Chicago with FULLY automatic, military-grade, Thompson Sub-Machine guns and nobody outlawed them. They had the latest military weapons available and used them for evil.

So what is the difference between then and now? Back then, we didn’t have progressive pussies. People realized that utopia doesn’t exist and that eliminating liberty was idiotic.

“Give me liberty, or give me death” - Patrick Henry

Maybe the U.S. just isn’t the place for you, N.K. Maybe you’d be more at home in Castro’s Cuba or Un’s North Korea. Both places rarely have a mass shooting. You should go. Seriously.

 

[BlackSand]

...

? Would such sweeping "liberties" essentially endanger the majority?

...

Define "Majority" ...

Over 55 million households (of 115 million) have at least one firearm in them ... And most with more than one gun owner in the house.
There are around 300 million legally owned firearms in the US.

Your idea of who is in the majority isn't quite as cut and dry as you would like to think.

.

 

[charwin95]

Silencers cannot be used on automatic weapons and are not effective on high powered rifles, this OP needs to stop having an opinion until he addresses his/her ignorance on this subject.

Ignorance really? Let me get this straight. If a lunatic use a gun fitted with silencers to kill innocent people—— Is that acceptable? Just imagine a lunatic shooting people without hearing a gun shot. How will others determine there is a shooting going on? Instead of running or ducking —— they just sit still.

Of how convenient.

C'mon .... you seriously think perverting the intent of somebody's post is going to further your argument??

Just grow up ....

As for the inelegant naivete of your argument against silencers - they don't silence. At best, they reduce the sound marginally (from about 160 dB to 120-130 dB), and do now address the "crack of the shot" - the sound made as the bullet travels its route breaking the sound barrier. I can't imagine a "lunatic shooting people without hearing a gun shot" - probably because it is physically impossible (the movies notwithstanding)

Really? WATCH THIS EVERYONE.

Show me a facts or a link that a silencer will reduce from 160db to 120-130dB.
I AM WAITING.


If a lunatic person want to fit his gun with a silencer. Shooting his gun at distance of 600 feet. How much noise is that for others as a warning to run?

So using a silencer is that supposed to be acceptable?

Are you waiting????

ARE YOU READY??

SURE YOU CAN HANDLE THIS?

GONNA 'HURT YOUR FEELINGS !!

From a thread posted on this site yesterday
------------------------------------------------------
Let's just go ahead and put another nonsensical liberal diatribe to bed ....

Hillary Clinton claimed Monday that even more people would have been killed in the recent Las Vegas massacre if the shooter had used a “silencer.”

“The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots,” she tweeted. “Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.”

2 Oct
Hillary Clinton

[emoji818]@HillaryClinton
Las Vegas, we are grieving with you—the victims, those who lost loved ones, the responders, & all affected by this cold-blooded massacre.

Follow
Hillary Clinton

[emoji818]@HillaryClinton
The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.

Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.

Clinton was making a pointed reference to a bill Congress is considering to ease restrictions on the sale and purchase of firearm suppressors.

Verdict: False

Clinton’s claim implies that gun “silencers” reduce the noise made by the shooting of the bullet and the bullet’s flight and impact to a point of near inaudibility. Neither implication holds up to the facts.

Fact Check:

A gun “silencer” or suppressor operates by “containing” the gases and fiery exhaust that are released upon the firing of a bullet. This release of high pressure gas and exhaust results in the loud sound associated with gunshots.

How loud a gunshot is depends on what gun and bullet are being fired. An average gunshot is around 140 decibels (dB), a unit that measures sound. Gun experts told The Daily Caller News Foundation that gunshots from assault rifles and automatic firearms, such as those used in the Las Vegas shooting, measure around 150 to 160 dB.

(For perspective, a busy city street measures around 80 dB loud.)

Suppressors similarly vary based on design and size in how much of this sound they can absorb.

Joshua Waldon, CEO of the gun suppressor designer and manufacturer SilencerCo., estimated to TheDCNF that unsuppressed gunshots range between 155 to 165 dB, while suppressed gunfire range in the “upper 130s,” a 20 to 30-decibel drop.

TheDCNF also examined a 2005 experiment that measured gunshot sound levels produced by over 120 combinations of guns, bullets, and suppressors. The experiment involved multiple assault rifles and automatic guns. The average sound level produced by the unsuppressed test shoots was over 160 dB. The average sound level produced by the suppressed test shoots was just over 135 dB, leaving an average 25 dB difference.

These case studies of suppressor effectiveness indicate significant sound reduction. Decibels are logarithmically scaled; a 12.5 percent drop in decibels from 160 dB to 140 dB represents a 10,000 percent reduction in sound, as each three-decibel increase or decrease represents a doubling or halving, respectively, of sound levels.

This supports Clinton’s notion that gun “silencers” or suppressors make gunshots significantly quieter. The issue, however, is that suppressed gunfire is still loud. Sound levels in the “upper 130s” decibels are comparable to those of a rock concert or sports crowd.

“It’s not like the movies,” SilencerCo. CEO Waldon told TheDCNF. “There’s zero reflection of what you see in Hollywood. It’s still loud.”

Gun suppressors lower gunshot sound levels “from simply ear shattering to very loud,” a New York-based gun hobbyist and Second Amendment advocate explained to TheDCNF.

The sound of the gunshot, however, is just half of the equation. There is also the sound made by the flight and impact of the bullet, both of which are affected by the speed of the bullet.

Suppressors’ effect on bullet speed is “low to nonexistent.”

The noise made by a bullet’s flight, often referred to as the sonic crack, is a “constant crack during the entire flight of the bullet because it’s flying [faster than] the speed of sound,” Waldon explained to the TheDCNF. “It’s an extremely loud, very loud sound.”

An experiment conducted for a 2014 outdoorsman and shooting training manual measured the sound made by variously sized bullets from a rifle, with and without a suppressor. Sound measurements were taken 165 feet away from the rifle. The experiment indicated immaterial changes in bullet flight sound levels with suppressor use.

This was just one experiment involving only one gun and suppressor with three different bullet sizes. Still, numerous gun experts and advocates confirmed its findings to TheDCNF – suppressors don’t reduce much sound from bullets already traveling faster than the speed of sound.

TheDCNF could not identify any publicly available measurements of the exact decibel sound level of bullet impacts at comparable ranges to the Las Vegas shooting with and without suppressors. Gun experts and hobbyists, including former military personnel, however, described bullet impacts as “just as loud as a bullet [being shot].”

Clinton claimed that the use of gun suppressors or “silencers” by the Las Vegas gunman could have worsened Sunday night’s tragedy that left nearly 60 dead and hundreds wounded on the basis that the crowd would not have heard the gunshots in time to flee. Although it is not confirmed yet if the shooter indeed was not even using a suppressor, Clinton’s claim relies on implications of how gun and gun suppressor mechanics work that do not hold up to the facts.

FACT CHECK: Do Gun Suppressors Really Silence ‘The Sound Of Gunshots’? |

Don't apologize - just say thank you for broadening your knowledge, and for not taking this opportunity to tell everybody how uninformed you really are.

As for your final nonsensical question - the sonic crack of the first bullet will serve as warning to all ... I'm guessing that after about 30 shots, even a liberal would figure out somebody was shooting.

Really? I mean REALLY? You are very funny dude.
I know you are going to come out with lousy garbage link.
Don’t you ever check your links if they are credible? Or where it came from?
It came from Tucker a right wing liar bias bullshit. Dude grow fuck up. Stop embarrassing yourself.



Daily Caller - Media Bias/Fact Check

RIGHT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: The Daily Caller is an American news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C.. It was founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney. The Daily Caller produces sensational headlines and has a right wing bias in reporting and has made false claims according to Snopes and Politifact. (7/19/2016) Updated (4/21/2017