Mad Mike Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Boycott is up to 71 companieshttp://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/robert-farago/firearms-industry-ny-leo-boycott-update-71-companies/ Fantastic! A) punishing the police for laws they did not create is stupid. That's 71 small companies. No major manufacturers. And leaving several hundred other companies who can replace them. An utterly stupid response by those involved. :doh: ---------- Post added February-27th-2013 at 07:10 PM ---------- This cartoon pretty much sums up the discussion for me at this point. I think both sides are talking past each other. I've taken a pretty reasonable and moderate stance for improved gun control but it's not enough for *some people* here who treat anything less than what they want as a call for arming students. Internet debating at it's finest. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I think both sides are talking past each other. I've taken a pretty reasonable and moderate stance for improved gun control but it's not enough for *some people* here who treat anything less than what they want as a call for arming students. Internet debating at it's finest. :doh: Agreed, and that was part of my point in posting the cartoon (although I admit it was kind of snarky from my side). "We have this conversation after every gun massacre. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.... the gun control debate is over and your side won." Look , in Predicto's perfect America, private citizens would not own handguns, much less assault weapons. They would defend their homes with shotguns and they would hunt with rifles and that pretty much would be enough. I believe that the Second Amendment can and should be interpreted that way. But my views have not prevailed, not in the political realm, and not before the Supreme Court. My views are not going to prevail. I have to deal with that. I can accept that registration and background checks are all I am ever going to get. But in the same way that you feel your reasonable views about limited gun control are being drowned out by posters from my side, I feel that some posters from your side who oppose any possible restrictions on guns in any way are doing your side a disservice. When people object to them, they are not objecting to your more nuanced positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Agreed, and that was part of my point in posting the cartoon (although I admit it was kind of snarky from my side). "We have this conversation after every gun massacre. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.... the gun control debate is over and your side won."Look , in Predicto's perfect America, private citizens would not own handguns, much less assault weapons. They would defend their homes with shotguns and they would hunt with rifles and that pretty much would be enough. I believe that the Second Amendment can and should be interpreted that way. But my views have not prevailed, not in the political realm, and not before the Supreme Court. My views are not going to prevail. I have to deal with that. I can accept that registration and background checks are all I am ever going to get. But in the same way that you feel your reasonable views about limited gun control are being drowned out by posters from my side, I feel that some posters from your side who oppose any possible restrictions on guns in any way are doing your side a disservice. When people object to them, they are not objecting to your more nuanced positions. Well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 .....punishing the police for laws they did not create is stupid.... You got it backwardsLaw Abiding Citizens should not be punished (why should cops fear the law abiding citizen having the same weapon?) Also Some Law Enforcement Agencies are right in the middle of this debate and might have been involved with input....at the very least they are vocal now (on both sides) Also Since Police are Government Officials ...... they are part of why Citizens need to be armed......as a counter weight (that whole tyranny thing) ---------- Post added February-27th-2013 at 08:23 PM ---------- ....... They would defend their homes with shotguns ........YeahMaybe you shouldn't get your advice from "Joey" Biden I would suggest that people should be able to protect their own house with the weapon they are most comfortable with (or can at least handle,,,ala the video) As far as why anybody would need a "Standard Capacity Magazine"...(aka Liberal Medias Evil high capacity)....I would want any law abiding citizen to have as many bullets as needed to defend themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 You got it backwardsLaw Abiding Citizens should not be punished (why should cops fear the law abiding citizen having the same weapon?) Also Some Law Enforcement Agencies are right in the middle of this debate and might have been involved with input....at the very least they are vocal now (on both sides) Also Since Police are Government Officials ...... they are part of why Citizens need to be armed......as a counter weight (that whole tyranny thing) ---------- Post added February-27th-2013 at 08:23 PM ---------- Yeah Maybe you shouldn't get your advice from "Joey" Biden I would suggest that people should be able to protect their own house with the weapon they are most comfortable with (or can at least handle,,,ala the video) As far as why anybody would need a "Standard Capacity Magazine"...(aka Liberal Medias Evil high capacity)....I would want any law abiding citizen to have as many bullets as needed to defend themselves So you think it's OK to punish the police for what they "might" have done? And you want citizens armed because the police "MIGHT" impose some kind of "tyranny thing". Do you realize how paranoid and downright crazy that sounds? This is from someone who is against a complete ban on so called "assault" weapons and 30 round magazines simply because there are (from new estimates I'm reading) some 5 million AR's and a couple gazillion so called 'high cap" magazines in the hands of law abiding citizens already and I'm against banning things because someone "might" use it for something bad. (post 302 gives my view pretty well) The difference between you and me apparently is that my standard applies to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 So you think it's OK to punish the police for what they "might" have done? ........Why keep on saying Punished....they will be allowed the same weapons as any OTHER citizenThe whole range of weapons allowed to the Police will still dwarf the average citizen. (along with training, organization, logistics.....) And since its just for NEW laws...the cops in areas that insist on increasingly criminalizing the gun owner will still have the previous horde of weaponry to fall back on......AKA NY I don't see this putting cops at risk....I DO see it as putting principalities on notice. Just for the record......I would also support increased background checks also If you choose to categorize some of this thinking as paranoid....BUT also want to put cops on a pedestal What would you say about Cops that are concerned about tyranny? Utah sheriffs oppose gun confiscation in letter to Obama http://www.moabtimes.com/view/full_story/21505211/article-Utah-sheriffs-oppose-gun-confiscation-in-letter-to-Obama?instance=lead_story_leftcolumn Growing List of Sheriffs, Associations and Police Chiefs Saying ‘NO’ to Obama Gun Control http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/ Over 127 sheriffs pledge Obama gun legislation will not be enforced. http://www.examiner.com/article/127-sheriffs-won-t-enforce-obama-gun-laws-specter-of-door-to-door-gun-search Or Cops that illegally confiscate guns when you need them the most? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Biden “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Why keep on saying Punished....they will be allowed the same weapons as any OTHER citizenThe whole range of weapons allowed to the Police will still dwarf the average citizen. (along with training, organization, logistics.....) And since its just for NEW laws...the cops in areas that insist on increasingly criminalizing the gun owner will still have the previous horde of weaponry to fall back on......AKA NY I don't see this putting cops at risk....I DO see it as putting principalities on notice. Just for the record......I would also support increased background checks also If you choose to categorize some of this thinking as paranoid....BUT also want to put cops on a pedestal What would you say about Cops that are concerned about tyranny? Utah sheriffs oppose gun confiscation in letter to Obama http://www.moabtimes.com/view/full_story/21505211/article-Utah-sheriffs-oppose-gun-confiscation-in-letter-to-Obama?instance=lead_story_leftcolumn Growing List of Sheriffs, Associations and Police Chiefs Saying ‘NO’ to Obama Gun Control http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/ Over 127 sheriffs pledge Obama gun legislation will not be enforced. http://www.examiner.com/article/127-sheriffs-won-t-enforce-obama-gun-laws-specter-of-door-to-door-gun-search Or Cops that illegally confiscate guns when you need them the most? Well as long as guys like this are down with it.... http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/joe_arpaio_hired_a_convicted_child_sex_criminal_for_armed_school_%E2%80%9Cposse%E2%80%9D/ And who wouldn't trust the unbiased judgement of a libertarian subgroup of sherifs?... http://cspoa.org/about/message-from-mack/ Me?... I'll listen to this guy... http://www.examiner.com/article/127-sheriffs-won-t-enforce-obama-gun-laws-specter-of-door-to-door-gun-search One lawman -- Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson -- has publicly disagreed with the growing position taken by his fellow sheriffs. According to in a report filed this morning by NBC News, Sheriff Robinson questioned the other sheriffs, saying:Public safety professionals serving in the executive branch do not have the constitutional authority, responsibility, and in most cases, the credentials to determine the constitutionality of any issue. Law enforcement officials should leave it to the courts to decide whether a law is constitutional or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 ......And who wouldn't trust the unbiased judgement of a libertarian subgroup of sheriffs?.......I didn't know Every County in Florida was Libertarian :evilg:The sheriff was on record pledging to not enforce laws that violate the Constitution or infringe on the rights of the people to own firearms. That pledge, made by him in January as Florida sheriff No. 57, has since been taken by all 67 Florida county sheriffs, making the state first to have all its county sheriffs sign. http://www.news-press.com/article/20130228/NEWS01/302280028/1086/news0111/Sheriff-Scott-scolds-Obama-over-gun-proposals?odyssey=nav%7Chead 228 Sheriffs & Sheriff Associations Against Obama’s Gun Ban http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/02/4816-law-enforcement-stands-against-obama-gun-ban-full-list/ From the link.....ill just list sherriffs in the "Libertarian State" of California 11 Adam Christianson Stanislaus California 12 Jon Lopey Siskiyou California 13 Tom Bosenko Shasta California 14 John D’Agostini El Dorado California 15 David Hencraft Tehama California 16 Dean Growden Lassen California 17 Dean Wilson Del Norte California 18 Mike Poindexter Modoc California 19 Thomas Allman Mendocino California 20 Mike Downey Humboldt California 21 Margaret Mims Fresno California 22 Greg Hagwood Plumas California 23 Bruce Haney Trinity California 24 Martin Ryan Amador California 25 Jerry Smith Butte California 26 Donny Youngblood Kern California 27 James W. Mele Toulumne California More Libertarians at the link :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 I didn't know Every County in Florida was Libertarian :evilg: cspoa *IS* a libertarian subgroup of sherifs. My statement is correct. As for the rest of these sherifs, Libertarian or not, they are IDIOTS over stepping the bounds of their authority. When police stop obeying the courts and start enforcing whatever laws they like and rejecting the rest, this nation is in DEEP trouble. As for the rest of your post, I've just about had my fill of the childish nature of debate that goes on here so having made my rational counterpoint to the insanity you support, I'm moving on. Have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 .......... As for the rest of these sherifs, Libertarian or not, they are IDIOTS........Idiots (your term) that YOU support in arming BETTER then the average citizen...just becauseThanks for making my point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 2, 2013 Author Share Posted March 2, 2013 Idiots (your term) that YOU support in arming BETTER then the average citizen...just becauseThanks for making my point I know this may come as a shock, but the cops are armed better than the average citizen. And I certainly support that. Maybe it's just me, but I do not want every gun nut, drug dealer, or disgruntled postal worker to have a 50-50 chance of winning a gunfight against the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Update A New York state judge agreed Friday to consider whether the state's tough new gun restrictions were rushed into law in violation of the state constitution. Plaintiff Robert Schulz called Cuomo a "king" for pushing through the nation's toughest gun law by suspending the three-day vetting period by submitting a “message of necessity” on the law, which allows the constitutional waiting period to be suspended. "Kings govern by opinion," said Shulz, who calls himself a "constitutionalist" and has challenged governors for decades in court although he isn't a lawyer. "There has to be some rationale, some justification of facts before waiving the people's demand for three days"' review of a bill. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/02/court-to-review-speedy-approval-ny-gun-controls/ ---------- Post added March-2nd-2013 at 12:27 PM ---------- ............ I do not want every gun nut, drug dealer, or disgruntled postal worker to have a 50-50 chance of winning a gunfight against the police.Assuming the Police are in the right......I also hope they are better armedBut you are assuming "Gun Nuts" are always on the wrong side of the law and lump them into the same group as criminals and mentally ill Very Revealing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 "Nuts" aren't typically balanced. and many people fall into this category. All sorts of polls are showing significant numbers of Americans wanting some sort of tightening of restrictions, be it deeper background checks, more extensive evaluations, or the desire to uncuff the police to trace criminal weapons back to their sources. But the ears are plugged, and the screeching of the nutty mantras drown out everything. And frankly, when someone cheers a gun company's decision to stop selling to the police in order to make their own political point, then they fall into the nut category for me. Because that is ****ing NUTS. It's especially nuts when they're completely oblivious or apathetic to why the gun companies are so concerned.. and it's not your rights. Their reasoning and their lobby is driven entirely by their sales. they don't want to see that hindered at all, and they really don't care who outguns who.. so long as they're making the profit off it. God Bless the Corporation, for whom we stand. It's also completely nuts when they scream about how these laws make it easier on criminals, and then stand up and cheer when a company decides to make it REALLY easy for the criminals to get their guns, but not the police.They cheer when their lobby says they believe in background checks, but now compare it to tyranny. They think this lobby gives a ****, but it doesn't even listen to it's own membership when they say they'd be ok with better background checks.. because reasonable people recognize that is a potential tool to stop the crazies. but the lobby doesn't care,, the manufacturers give them their marching orders - "Keep our money flowing", and so they do. As it says in your sig,, as long as the criminal wants a gun, he's going to get it. the question is,, WHERE does he get it, and WHY don't we close those holes in the system? Because then the nuts scream it's an invasion of their privacy and tyranny and all that other horse****. the NUTS talk in circles, and the criminals just smile. Cha-CHING! Suckers. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcl05 Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Gun deaths since Newtown: 2405. Disgraceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 2, 2013 Author Share Posted March 2, 2013 Assuming the Police are in the right......I also hope they are better armed That's funny. I could have sworn that I was responding to the post from somebody who was chewing somebody out for implying that the cops should outgun the average citizen. But you are assuming "Gun Nuts" are always on the wrong side of the law and lump them into the same group as criminals and mentally illVery Revealing But you are making things up and claiming I said them. Very . . . expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 ....... I do not want every gun nut, drug dealer, or disgruntled postal worker to have a 50-50 chance of winning a gunfight against the police. .......you are assuming "Gun Nuts" are always on the wrong side of the law and lump them into the same group as criminals and mentally ill..... .....you are making things up and claiming I said them......Nopeyou "typed" it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 2, 2013 Author Share Posted March 2, 2013 Nopeyou "typed" it Really? I "typed" "Gun nuts are always on the wrong side of the law and are in the same group as criminals and the mentally ill"? I guess I must have edited it out. And edited it out of your attempts at once again claiming something that isn't true. For the second time. But keep shovelin. You're making your cause look so rational and reasonable and honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Update http://www.nysaferesolutions.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 3, 2013 Author Share Posted March 3, 2013 Wow. Makes you wonder how the thing managed to pass. I bet the voters will throw out all of those state legislators who voted for the law. And then the legislature will repeal it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorshockalu Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Right. Anybody who DOESN'T know that a few seconds spent reloading isn't important during a mass murder, but it's absolutely crucial at the target range, is completely ignorant. The fact the shooter could bring 20 pre-loaded clips didn't cross your mind? How about criminals (especially mass-murderers) don't follow the laws to begin with? At the target range, you typically bring 1-2 clips so you do have to reload often which would be a pain in the ass for the law abiding citizens. Someone that wants to make a knee jerk reaction would be an idiot, not someone who analyzes the situation and realizes this stops nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 15, 2013 Author Share Posted March 15, 2013 The fact the shooter could bring 20 pre-loaded clips didn't cross your mind? And the guy at the target range can't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorshockalu Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 You ever lived in an apartment with roaches?ever try to get rid of the roaches? While you fumigate, they go next door. Doesn't hurt any of them. It's an incredibly dense argument to ask "how's that working" when anyone knows they can simply take a little drive and come back with the weapons they need. But you know that. because to not know that you'd have to be incredibly ****ing stupid. and i have faith in ya. ~Bang My goodness.It seems I've overestimated you. Stricter more thorough background checks, closing private sales loopholes and allowing police to trace a criminal's weapons back to their sellers would go a long way toward solving many problems without having to ban anything. There. Now you can remember my position in the future and save yourself all that ridiculous blustering. I guess i could have done that right off the bat so there'd be no question, like you did when you made it clear that you're happy to see the police disarmed. oops.. see how I did that? i took one statement you made, and extrapolated it into you wanting the police disarmed. When you don't believe that and said nothing like that. All you said was that you are happy that the gun companies will make sure it's easier for crooks to get guns than the police because they don't want their revenue streams disrupted. ~Bang In your first quote you said they will get the guns somewhere else. Not sure how anyone would read that first post and understand you have a completely different viewpoint. As for the lame snide comments, you are too old for that nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 As for the lame snide comments, you are too old for that nonsense. "Snide" is fine here in most cases. Your highlighted comment isn't. Up to you to figure out why (reading the rule carefully can help). The track record (including breaks given) of your rule violations leaves no more leeway. You already have qualified for a permanent ban and are here due to our usual leniency. Your next misstep will likely be final, ES-wise. I'd rather people survive themselves here than not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorshockalu Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Most gun owners don't own 20 clips for the same gun because it is too expensive. Depending on the range, you have to buy their bullets so pre-loading wouldn't even be an option. A psycho would have no problem buying 20+ clips and we would still have the same problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.