"Common Sense" Gun Control

[Dubya]

No, I don't. I support a registration that has to be renewed at the local police to make sure the weapons don't get into the wrong hands.

How would that have stopped Lanza ?

I'm not concerned about that case. The recommendations allow people to have assault weapons and keep them out of the hands of criminals

I simply answered your question again. How many times doesn't someone have to tell a moron like you that they have never asked for any weapon to be banned, before you can get it through your thick fucking skull? Then, you have to ask stupid questions like: Do you support Obama's ban on assault weapons? What kind of moron are you who can't figure out, if you don't want weapons banned, how would Obama's name change that?

Let's just call it even and deal with the subjects. I don't want you or me being the subject.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I was almost killed by an axe murder when I was six year old. I know about danger, I just don't live in fear.

I'm not afraid because I am not defenseless as you would want me to be

You are the one who is afraid which is why you want to restrict weapon ownership so the bad guys can't hurt you.

I want laws to keep guns out of criminal's hands and if makes it harder for you to get one, that's just too bad.

yeah those criminals are just so good at obeying laws

 

[Political Junky]

Reagan supported gun safety measures throughout his political career. In 1986, he signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which “banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.” He later backed the Brady bill, expressing support for “a seven-day waiting period before a purchaser could take possession of a handgun, an even more stringent restriction than the five day cooling-off period that was included in the final legislation, and less stringent than the 15-day cooling-off period he signed into law as governor of California.”

Reagan Only Supported Gun Control Because He Was Senile, Prominent Gun Advocate Suggests | ThinkProgress

 

[OODA_Loop]

No, I don't. I support a registration that has to be renewed at the local police to make sure the weapons don't get into the wrong hands.

How would that have stopped Lanza ?

I'm not concerned about that case.

 

[Dubya]

but we had 8,583 in 2011 and that means there is a problem.

There are 400,000,000 (estimated) guns in private ownership.

We have like 35 times the homicides by gun as the UK on an equal population comparison.

 

[OODA_Loop]

but we had 8,583 in 2011 and that means there is a problem.

There are 400,000,000 (estimated) guns in private ownership.

We have like 35 times the homicides by gun as the UK on an equal population comparison.

I will stay here.

 

[Dubya]

As I pointed out, homicide by gun includes self defense, suicide, justifiable homicide, shootings involving police, and, to show just how stupid it is, it even includes legal executions that use guns. You are attempting to deceive people again, I refuse to fall into your trap.

This thread is not about gun control, it is about the idiotic that Obama is calling common sense gun control, none of which is anything less than an attempt to prove to idiots that he is doing something to fix a problem that only exists in the minds of morons.

Why do you even bother to post your propaganda?

If we had 250 homicides by gun per year on par with the UK or 5 times theirs to adjust the population, there wouldn't be an obvious problem, but we had 8,583 in 2011 and that means there is a problem.

So the issue is, if the UK can have a homicide by gun rate that low, why can't we?

It's going to take more than NRA nonsense to explain that away.

I don't live in the UK, I don't give a frack how many people die there because of stupid laws, I care about stupid laws here killing people because I might be one of the ones that dies. Guns do not cause violence, they do not cause gun violence, they don't do anything except lay where they are placed.

The stupid laws are the ones your kind made that put guns into the hands of criminals. Now, you're concerned about protecting yourself, by working your ass off to keep those stupid laws. Well, we don't want your stupid laws anymore.

 

[Dubya]

You do know this site has a search function, don't you? You are the one that claimed that it is legal to adapt magazines to hold fewer rounds.

Where does it say the magazines are legal? There is a function called reading what' in front of your face.

I had the part where it said the magazines are illegal highlighted in red. Your denial of reality is a function of being caught in a blatant lie.

Were did I say it would meet the standard in New York. I said I haven't seen their law. I simply showed someone how to reduce capacity of a magazine. Someone posted part of the law claiming it was about magazines that talks about large capacity ammunition feeding device:

19 § 46-a. The penal law is amended by adding two new sections 265.36 and
20 265.37 to read as follows:
21 § 265.36 Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding
22 device.
23 It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess a large capaci-
24 ty ammunition feeding device manufactured before September thirteenth,
25 nineteen hundred ninety-four, and if such person lawfully possessed such
26 large capacity feeding device before the effective date of the chapter
27 of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section, that has
28 a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept,
29 more than ten rounds of ammunition.
30 An individual who has a reasonable belief that such device is of such
31 a character that it may lawfully be possessed and who surrenders or
32 lawfully disposes of such device within thirty days of being notified by
33 law enforcement or county licensing officials that such possession is
34 unlawful shall not be guilty of this offense. It shall be a rebuttable
35 presumption that such person knows that such large capacity ammunition
36 feeding device may not be lawfully possessed if he or she has been
37 contacted by law enforcement or county licensing officials and informed
38 that such device may not be lawfully possessed.
39 Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device is a
40 class A misdemeanor.

It says it was before 9/13/94? I vaguely remember some kind of device that would feed a bunch of rounds way back when. There is nothing in what was quoted of the NY law that mentions high capacity magazines, like the discussion was about. Perhaps the person who posted it should read it well enough to understand what it says.

 

[Dubya]

I'm not afraid because I am not defenseless as you would want me to be

You are the one who is afraid which is why you want to restrict weapon ownership so the bad guys can't hurt you.

I want laws to keep guns out of criminal's hands and if makes it harder for you to get one, that's just too bad.

yeah those criminals are just so good at obeying laws

The laws aren't for the criminals to obey.

 

[Oldguy]

By the way, Dubya, like his namesake, lied about the new law in New York, it actually makes possession of previously legal magazines a crime. It also turns out that I was right in my assertion that you cannot retrofit a "high capacity" magazine to make it legal.

NY Gun Law Text

Let's see if that survives the inevitable court challenge. It sounds like an Ex Post Facto law to me.

Ex post facto is retroactively applying a law after it is passed, this is simply making the future possession of something illegal. There is no reason this will loose simply because you don't understand how the law works.

I know what ex post facto means and I understand how the law works. That provision of the law makes owning a certain type of feeding device BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THIS LAW illegal.

If that isn't retroactively applying a new law (ex post facto), what is?

 

[Dubya]

Let's see if that survives the inevitable court challenge. It sounds like an Ex Post Facto law to me.

Ex post facto is retroactively applying a law after it is passed, this is simply making the future possession of something illegal. There is no reason this will loose simply because you don't understand how the law works.

I know what ex post facto means and I understand how the law works. That provision of the law makes owning a certain type of feeding device BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THIS LAW illegal.

If that isn't retroactively applying a new law (ex post facto), what is?

This is the link they base what they say on:

19 § 46-a. The penal law is amended by adding two new sections 265.36 and
20 265.37 to read as follows:
21 § 265.36 Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding
22 device.
23 It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess a large capaci-
24 ty ammunition feeding device manufactured before September thirteenth,
25 nineteen hundred ninety-four, and if such person lawfully possessed such
26 large capacity feeding device before the effective date of the chapter
27 of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section, that has
28 a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept,
29 more than ten rounds of ammunition.
30 An individual who has a reasonable belief that such device is of such
31 a character that it may lawfully be possessed and who surrenders or
32 lawfully disposes of such device within thirty days of being notified by
33 law enforcement or county licensing officials that such possession is
34 unlawful shall not be guilty of this offense. It shall be a rebuttable
35 presumption that such person knows that such large capacity ammunition
36 feeding device may not be lawfully possessed if he or she has been
37 contacted by law enforcement or county licensing officials and informed
38 that such device may not be lawfully possessed.
39 Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device is a
40 class A misdemeanor.

Notice they are talking about a large capacity ammunition feeding device before 9/13/94! They claim this is talking about high capacity magazines.

 

[petro]

The leftists are under the illusion that more restrictions will somehow make us all safer. The reality is you will more likely die in a car wreck during rush hour rather than being the target of a deranged killer. We simply cannot legislate ourselves into safety and any attempt to control danger is futile. Life is fucking dangerous on many fronts. It is my human right to protect myself from those who would do me harm and that includes our nanny state society.

We should be teaching our kids gun safety and operation, so they don't learn about weapons from the deranged media such as the disgusting video games and movies that exploit violence. Where is the talk on that issue? How many depraved acts of violence do children see on media before they are 10? Oh, that's right. Those seeking to slam the 2nd Amendment cringe at any thought of restriction on violent images as that is protected under the First. If I have to live with a so-called "assault" weapons ban, lets have a compromise and reign in the deplorable disgusting crap spewed out by the very libtards in Hollywood and the gaming industry who make millions warping the minds of our youth. You say there is no connection? Well I state the same about Odumbo's proposals and how these restrictions will somehow make us all safe.

 

[Oldguy]

Ex post facto is retroactively applying a law after it is passed, this is simply making the future possession of something illegal. There is no reason this will loose simply because you don't understand how the law works.

I know what ex post facto means and I understand how the law works. That provision of the law makes owning a certain type of feeding device BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THIS LAW illegal.

If that isn't retroactively applying a new law (ex post facto), what is?

This is the link they base what they say on:

19 § 46-a. The penal law is amended by adding two new sections 265.36 and
20 265.37 to read as follows:
21 § 265.36 Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding
22 device.
23 It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess a large capaci-
24 ty ammunition feeding device manufactured before September thirteenth,
25 nineteen hundred ninety-four, and if such person lawfully possessed such
26 large capacity feeding device before the effective date of the chapter
27 of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section, that has
28 a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept,
29 more than ten rounds of ammunition.
30 An individual who has a reasonable belief that such device is of such
31 a character that it may lawfully be possessed and who surrenders or
32 lawfully disposes of such device within thirty days of being notified by
33 law enforcement or county licensing officials that such possession is
34 unlawful shall not be guilty of this offense. It shall be a rebuttable
35 presumption that such person knows that such large capacity ammunition
36 feeding device may not be lawfully possessed if he or she has been
37 contacted by law enforcement or county licensing officials and informed
38 that such device may not be lawfully possessed.
39 Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device is a
40 class A misdemeanor.

Notice they are talking about a large capacity ammunition feeding device before 9/13/94! They claim this is talking about high capacity magazines.

Is a magazine not a feeding device? That's a general term probably used deliberately to prevent someone creating a device other than a "magazine" and claiming the law doesn't apply.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Common sense" gun control consists of anything that will:
-Prevent criminals from getting guns
-Not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding.

If you have a proposal that meets these requirements, I will support it in full.
Please feel free to share.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We don't know how she was killed, because the only evidence is she is dead.

Right.

First, he killed his mother.

Sandy Hook School Shooting: Adam Lanza Kills 26 And Himself At Connecticut School (LIVE UPDATES)

You must be paid to be stupid.

Show me anywhere in the news where it was reported how the mother died! Claiming that he killed the mother and took the guns was never reported in any news story I read. The way the mother was killed was never reported. The simple fact is I qualified what I said and simply said I never saw it.

You're the one who is stupid.

He killed the mother first and then went to the school and did those killings. That was reported. If you want to claim he killed his mother somehow and then took the guns, prove it by a source! The reason you people have to prove things is you make shit up all the time and it wouldn't make a difference if it's true. I only said I didn't see it.

Who would trust a bunch of liars like you people?

I just did, idiot.

 

[Dubya]

I know what ex post facto means and I understand how the law works. That provision of the law makes owning a certain type of feeding device BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THIS LAW illegal.

If that isn't retroactively applying a new law (ex post facto), what is?

This is the link they base what they say on:

19 § 46-a. The penal law is amended by adding two new sections 265.36 and
20 265.37 to read as follows:
21 § 265.36 Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding
22 device.
23 It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess a large capaci-
24 ty ammunition feeding device manufactured before September thirteenth,
25 nineteen hundred ninety-four, and if such person lawfully possessed such
26 large capacity feeding device before the effective date of the chapter
27 of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section, that has
28 a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept,
29 more than ten rounds of ammunition.
30 An individual who has a reasonable belief that such device is of such
31 a character that it may lawfully be possessed and who surrenders or
32 lawfully disposes of such device within thirty days of being notified by
33 law enforcement or county licensing officials that such possession is
34 unlawful shall not be guilty of this offense. It shall be a rebuttable
35 presumption that such person knows that such large capacity ammunition
36 feeding device may not be lawfully possessed if he or she has been
37 contacted by law enforcement or county licensing officials and informed
38 that such device may not be lawfully possessed.
39 Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device is a
40 class A misdemeanor.

Notice they are talking about a large capacity ammunition feeding device before 9/13/94! They claim this is talking about high capacity magazines.

Is a magazine not a feeding device? That's a general term probably used deliberately to prevent someone creating a device other than a "magazine" and claiming the law doesn't apply.

Long ago I remember this device that would feed large amounts of ammo and look at the date 9/13/94. I think they banned the device, banned making them or something. It's vague, but this part of the law isn't talking about high capacity magazines. I haven't had time to find and read that law and figured it wouldn't be in print for a few days.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

but we had 8,583 in 2011 and that means there is a problem.

There are 400,000,000 (estimated) guns in private ownership.

We have like 35 times the homicides by gun as the UK on an equal population comparison.

They have more home invasions, what's your point?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The leftists are under the illusion that more restrictions will somehow make us all safer.

WRONG
WRONG
WRONG

The useful idiots that the leftists depend on for support are under the illusion that more restrictions on guns will somehow make us all safer; the leftists themselves believe that the state should have a monopily on force, and an armed citizenry runs contrary to this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do you even bother to post your propaganda?

If we had 250 homicides by gun per year on par with the UK or 5 times theirs to adjust the population, there wouldn't be an obvious problem, but we had 8,583 in 2011 and that means there is a problem.

So the issue is, if the UK can have a homicide by gun rate that low, why can't we?

It's going to take more than NRA nonsense to explain that away.

I don't live in the UK, I don't give a frack how many people die there because of stupid laws, I care about stupid laws here killing people because I might be one of the ones that dies. Guns do not cause violence, they do not cause gun violence, they don't do anything except lay where they are placed.

The stupid laws are the ones your kind made that put guns into the hands of criminals. Now, you're concerned about protecting yourself, by working your ass off to keep those stupid laws. Well, we don't want your stupid laws anymore.

There are laws that put guns in the hands of criminals? What are they? Do they get a tax break if they buy more than one gun?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where does it say the magazines are legal? There is a function called reading what' in front of your face.

I had the part where it said the magazines are illegal highlighted in red. Your denial of reality is a function of being caught in a blatant lie.

Were did I say it would meet the standard in New York. I said I haven't seen their law. I simply showed someone how to reduce capacity of a magazine. Someone posted part of the law claiming it was about magazines that talks about large capacity ammunition feeding device:

19 § 46-a. The penal law is amended by adding two new sections 265.36 and
20 265.37 to read as follows:
21 § 265.36 Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding
22 device.
23 It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess a large capaci-
24 ty ammunition feeding device manufactured before September thirteenth,
25 nineteen hundred ninety-four, and if such person lawfully possessed such
26 large capacity feeding device before the effective date of the chapter
27 of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section, that has
28 a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept,
29 more than ten rounds of ammunition.
30 An individual who has a reasonable belief that such device is of such
31 a character that it may lawfully be possessed and who surrenders or
32 lawfully disposes of such device within thirty days of being notified by
33 law enforcement or county licensing officials that such possession is
34 unlawful shall not be guilty of this offense. It shall be a rebuttable
35 presumption that such person knows that such large capacity ammunition
36 feeding device may not be lawfully possessed if he or she has been
37 contacted by law enforcement or county licensing officials and informed
38 that such device may not be lawfully possessed.
39 Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device is a
40 class A misdemeanor.

It says it was before 9/13/94? I vaguely remember some kind of device that would feed a bunch of rounds way back when. There is nothing in what was quoted of the NY law that mentions high capacity magazines, like the discussion was about. Perhaps the person who posted it should read it well enough to understand what it says.

Where did you say poop is good to eat?