Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Las Vegas Oct 2017 mass shooting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
    For me it was a 'pretty much as expected' moment. Anyone who thinks this guy means a single thing he says that isn't about how wonderful he is has been living in a hole for 30+ years.
    Whats the big deal? So he has a cheat sheet. So do I during my presentations. Be glad these notes at least make sense
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

    Comment


    • Originally posted by antimony View Post
      Whats the big deal? So he has a cheat sheet. So do I during my presentations. Be glad these notes at least make sense
      Its not about the existence of a cheat sheet, its about the last point. No normal person should have to remember to say something like that.
      sigpic

      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

      Comment


      • Originally posted by antimony View Post
        Sure, they banned the sale and not ownership.

        What happens, theoretically, if Congress passes that federally (I am not proposing that myself, but let's do that thought exercise)? With no more sales (including sales of stripped lowers and "80%" lowers), manufacturers drop their product lines and change their tooling to build other products. Existing "assault rifle" prices skyrocket.
        I strongly suggest you read the ban. It speaks of cosmetic things. Pistol gribs. Magazines. Barrel shrouds. The actions were still perfectly legal and the manufacturers got around it by installing thumb holes and smaller magazines.

        It should be pointed out that the after market add on accessories were still perfectly legal.

        Originally posted by antimony View Post
        After a point, so does ammo. You practical concerns regarding hunting notwithstanding, this can be done and wouod be supported by the courts.
        Good luck with that one. The .223 first came out as a hunting ammunition. The 5.56 came out afterwards as a modified military variant. The same with the .308 and the 7.62x51

        Originally posted by antimony View Post
        Auto rifles were brought under NFA. How many do you see now in private hands
        According to the ATF, 182,619. Consdiering the number of semi-autos out there, your scheme would not even make a dent in firearms availability. It never had.

        Source: Machine Guns Are Legal: A Practical Guide to Full Auto
        Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 24 Feb 18,, 14:54.
        Chimo

        Comment


        • Originally posted by antimony View Post
          this makes far more sense than harebrained ideas of "give teachers guns"
          It's not an easy substitution. You're asking a man to go up against an active shooter with nothing more a shield and have no way to stop the shooter. You need something like a shield wall to make this work so that the guy beside you can give you confidence.

          These things are not cheap and would require some training akin to riot police. Where do you store them to have access? And it would not have stopped this shooter. He pulled the fire alarm and that meant the intent is for the students to get out; contrary to the idea of a shield wall.

          One last thing. These shooters are not the ultimate nightmare. Beslan is and nothing I've read suggest any school can be prepared for that; not even the schools around Beslan.
          Chimo

          Comment


          • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
            One last thing. These shooters are not the ultimate nightmare. Beslan is and nothing I've read suggest any school can be prepared for that; not even the schools around Beslan.
            I would argue that some of Boko Haram's attacks on schools in Nigeria have run worse than Beslan.

            Comment


            • The conditions for a Boko Haram (motorized company level assault) doesn't exist in the US but the conditions for a platoon level hostage capture does.
              Chimo

              Comment


              • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                I strongly suggest you read the ban. It speaks of cosmetic things. Pistol gribs. Magazines. Barrel shrouds. The actions were still perfectly legal and the manufacturers got around it by installing thumb holes and smaller magazines.
                Col.,

                The exact wording of the current and past gun laws is not my point. My point is, as per the Heller decision, it is perfectly constitutional to restrict sales of firearms.

                The Courtís opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
                If the drafting is changed, then a broader spectrum of gun can be brought into that.

                Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                It should be pointed out that the after market add on accessories were still perfectly legal.
                And as they are not "firearms" they can be well regulated. SO can non firearm parts like bolt assemblies, trigger assemblies, barrels and uper assemblies, none of which technically are "arms".

                Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                Good luck with that one. The .223 first came out as a hunting ammunition. The 5.56 came out afterwards as a modified military variant. The same with the .308 and the 7.62x51
                And how long will that go on after demand from new shooters fall and restrictions like background checks come in.

                Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                According to the ATF, 182,619. Consdiering the number of semi-autos out there, your scheme would not even make a dent in firearms availability. It never had.

                Source: Machine Guns Are Legal: A Practical Guide to Full Auto
                In grandfathered models, yes. New gun availability would grind to a halt. And if I already have a few assault rifles grandfathered in, will I be willing to sell them, unless I need to pay for my kids' college education?
                "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                Comment


                • Originally posted by antimony View Post
                  The exact wording of the current and past gun laws is not my point. My point is, as per the Heller decision, it is perfectly constitutional to restrict sales of firearms.
                  What exactly would that achieve? You cannot legally ban the sale of something that you have a constitutional right to. You cannot legally force US citizens or entities from earning a living providing products that are Constitutional by right. You can make it expensive but not prohibitively expensive.

                  A gunmaker has the right to earn a living providing products that are legally allowed. The government has no right to impose undue taxation to force him out of his trade.

                  Originally posted by antimony View Post
                  If the drafting is changed, then a broader spectrum of gun can be brought into that.
                  Let's kill this right off the bat. It won't be. There is no political desire to ban semi-autos. You include it in any ban, then it would outright rejected even by CA.

                  Originally posted by antimony View Post
                  And as they are not "firearms" they can be well regulated. SO can non firearm parts like bolt assemblies, trigger assemblies, barrels and uper assemblies, none of which technically are "arms".
                  Considering that Mass received a total 3 bump stocks/trigger activators in their ban, it would have neglible effect. It is illegal for the US government to force a legal trade in demand out of existence.

                  Originally posted by antimony View Post
                  And how long will that go on after demand from new shooters fall and restrictions like background checks come in.
                  Forerver. The .223 and the .308 are world popular hunting rounds. The .223 is the new .3030 and the .308 is the goto round for mid game.

                  Originally posted by antimony View Post
                  In grandfathered models, yes. New gun availability would grind to a halt. And if I already have a few assault rifles grandfathered in, will I be willing to sell them, unless I need to pay for my kids' college education?
                  Until something new and exciting comes along. Look, the world's militaries are looking to change fireamrs; there will be sport/game versions of those coming out. If it can drop a man, it can drop a deer. I personally like the feel of actual game rifles and my goto round is .30-06 but that doesn't mean I could not appreciate the thinking and execution of new designs.
                  Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 24 Feb 18,, 17:58.
                  Chimo

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                    What exactly would that achieve? You cannot legally ban the sale of something that you have a constitutional right to. You cannot legally force US citizens or entities from earning a living providing products that are Constitutional by right. You can make it expensive but not prohibitively expensive.

                    A gunmaker has the right to earn a living providing products that are legally allowed. The government has no right to impose undue taxation to force him out of his trade.
                    Scalia in the Heller decision disagrees. Your opinion or mine do not matter. The SCOTUS has spoken clearly on this. As to what it would achieve? What happened to semi auto gun market during the ban?

                    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                    Let's kill this right off the bat. It won't be. There is no political desire to ban semi-autos. You include it in any ban, then it would outright rejected even by CA.
                    Listen to Rubio's CNN Townhall. There is a growing voice for just that. A few years ago single player did not have political backing. Now it has. Things change. Also, it is not a desire to ban semi autos. It is a desire to ban sales of semi autos. Big difference, as you yourself showed me.

                    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                    Considering that Mass received a total 3 bump stocks/trigger activators in their ban, it would have neglible effect. It is illegal for the US government to force a legal trade in demand out of existence.
                    That arguement, were it valid, would have forced the government to decrminalized the war on drugs. Arms are explicitly allowed in the constitution. Bolt assemblies and bump stocks are not.

                    You know what happens to bolt assemblies and barrels after frequent use, don't you?

                    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                    Forerver. The .223 and the .308 are world popular hunting rounds. The .223 is the new .3030 and the .308 is the goto round for mid game.
                    Which would be shot out of what? If I cannot get a new semi-auto or parts for them, I will cherish the ones I have and turn them into safe queens. Bye bye ammo sales.

                    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                    Until something new and exciting comes along. Look, the world's militaries are looking to change fireamrs; there will be sport/game versions of those coming out. If it can drop a man, it can drop a deer. I personally like the feel of actual game rifles and my goto round is .30-06 but that doesn't mean I could not appreciate the thinking and execution of new designs.
                    New and exciting? Have you even seen the stuff coming out of the recent SHOT Shows? Let me enlighten you.

                    https://www.fieldandstream.com/shot-...-guns-and-gear

                    Custom desert eagle 1911. Yay.

                    Yes, some things are semi-interesting (alternatively, quasi-interesting, the margerine of interesting, the diet coke of interesting, just one calorie, not interesting enough), like the Tavor Semi auto shotgun, with a price tag of 1500 or the new Valkyrie bolt action rifle that fires a .224 round, with a price tag of 4400. Again, yay.

                    Col. Here is the disconnect. you are thinking of practical applications, what is "right" in your opinion and politicial desirability.

                    I am thinking in the narrow terms of what I can legally get away with in terms of gun legislation, in light of the Heller decision and the court's unwillingness to challenge recent gun sale bans.
                    Last edited by antimony; 24 Feb 18,, 19:41.
                    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                      There would probably be a million Randy Weavers if confiscation were to begin.

                      The Constitution does guarantee arms ownership, and the reasons for doing so is quite clear.
                      True but this amendment seems to be sacrosanct while all the other rights, in the Bill of Rights, now have limitations on them. Ergo, if those amendments can be limited then so can the 2nd yet it is the only one to have untouchable status.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by antimony View Post
                        Scalia in the Heller decision disagrees. Your opinion or mine do not matter. The SCOTUS has spoken clearly on this. As to what it would achieve? What happened to semi auto gun market during the ban?
                        I suggest you read the decision again. The term is In Common Usage. Semi-atuos are in common usage. The law does NOT allow you to retreat from common usage.

                        Originally posted by antimony View Post
                        Listen to Rubio's CNN Townhall. There is a growing voice for just that. A few years ago single player did not have political backing. Now it has. Things change. Also, it is not a desire to ban semi autos. It is a desire to ban sales of semi autos. Big difference, as you yourself showed me.
                        The 2A and 44 States with the Right to Bear Arms in their own Consitutions say otherwise.

                        Originally posted by antimony View Post
                        That arguement, were it valid, would have forced the government to decrminalized the war on drugs.
                        I said A LEGAL TRADE.

                        Originally posted by antimony View Post
                        Arms are explicitly allowed in the constitution. Bolt assemblies and bump stocks are not.
                        Until they are defined illegal, they are legal and good luck banning every action that ever existed on earth. I will bet you tomorrow that someone will come up with an action that is semi-auto in nature but would fit outside the current legal defintions. The old fashion gatling crank comes to mind. The only reason why it's restricted to cannon use is because superior handheld actions of the day that deliver similar rates of fire

                        Originally posted by antimony View Post
                        You know what happens to bolt assemblies and barrels after frequent use, don't you?
                        Yeah and I also know that there overseas makers of cheap parts. All you would have done is to restrict firearm ownership to the rich and I am extremely uncomfortable with that. Gunsmiths are still required to service military and police firearms and there's no law yet that they cannot service privately held firearms.

                        Originally posted by antimony View Post
                        Which would be shot out of what? If I cannot get a new semi-auto or parts for them, I will cherish the ones I have and turn them into safe queens. Bye bye ammo sales.
                        Who says you can't? You just have to pay an exhorborant price for it. Again restricting firearms to the rich. I do not like a situation in NYC where a combat veteran with 4 tours under his belt gone through 3 months of paperwork only to be deny a sidearm for self defence purposes and Ivanka Trump got one the next day.

                        Originally posted by antimony View Post
                        New and exciting? Have you even seen the stuff coming out of the recent SHOT Shows? Let me enlighten you.
                        Not my cup of tea. I'm more interested in the 7mm Mag and moose guns although I do read through the 5.xx crap that keep coming out.

                        But I do get the facination. You're talking to a guy who had a $600 lure collection and I probably lose 5-6 a year catching on rocks.

                        Originally posted by antimony View Post
                        Col. Here is th disconnect. you are thinking of practical applications, what is "right" in your opinion and politicial desirability.

                        I am thinking in the narrow terms of what I can legally get away with in terms of gun legislation, in light of the Heller decision and the court's unwillingness to challenge recent gun sale bans.
                        Your goal is to stop the mass shooting and I cannot see how. The FOPA was 1986. The AWB was in 1994. The North Hollywood Shootout was in 1997, using fully automatic AK47s, XM-16, HK-91, and Berretta 92FS.

                        And frankly, the amount of thinking to circumvette the laws is staggerring. I didn't even know about trigger activators or bump stocks until the Vegas Incident. I admired the thinking that went into this. You want to get rid of magazines? Fine. How about belt fed? Legislation will never keep up with technology.

                        As for political support, you want to know what the take away from the 1997 North Hollywood Shootout was? The criminals outgunned the cops (and how effective homemade armour was). It was also during this time when people paid outrageous prices for assualt type rifles.

                        Now, let's say you get your ban. How long before you see results? We know that 10 years is too short (The 1994 AWB expired in 2004 with no evidence of AWB crime reduction), so 20 years before you see results? 20 years of reducing the People's Consitutional Rights while still subjecting the schools to the same danger. Not acceptable.
                        Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 24 Feb 18,, 22:44.
                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                          True but this amendment seems to be sacrosanct while all the other rights, in the Bill of Rights, now have limitations on them. Ergo, if those amendments can be limited then so can the 2nd yet it is the only one to have untouchable status.
                          Are you even serious? 2A is the most heavily regulated right on the bill! I mean, when was the last time you had to do a background check for speaking? Have they limited your rate of typing to x words per minute? Do you have to file a nfa application and wait a year, pay $500 to get a podium? Do you get the power of speech taken away from you after a felony conviction?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by citanon View Post
                            Are you even serious? 2A is the most heavily regulated right on the bill! I mean, when was the last time you had to do a background check for speaking? Have they limited your rate of typing to x words per minute? Do you have to file a nfa application and wait a year, pay $500 to get a podium? Do you get the power of speech taken away from you after a felony conviction?
                            Yes, I am serious. The 2nd amendment arguably has less limitations attached to it than the other amendments by the Federal government. Look it up if you don't believe me.

                            As far as your example with the 1st get real. There have been a number of restrictions placed on free speech in time, place, and how via Federal law. As to the 2nd it seems to me that most restrictions are state based, which are your above examples, not Federal based and I'm talking Federal.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                              Yes, I am serious. The 2nd amendment arguably has less limitations attached to it than the other amendments by the Federal government. Look it up if you don't believe me.

                              As far as your example with the 1st get real. There have been a number of restrictions placed on free speech in time, place, and how via Federal law. As to the 2nd it seems to me that most restrictions are state based, which are your above examples, not Federal based and I'm talking Federal.
                              Dude, there's no way you can honestly argue that there's more regulation placed on the first amendment than the second. That's disingenuous rhetorical BS and you know it.

                              Move on. It was an unnecessary overreach that only discredits your debate position.
                              Last edited by citanon; 25 Feb 18,, 10:16.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by citanon View Post
                                Are you even serious? 2A is the most heavily regulated right on the bill! I mean, when was the last time you had to do a background check for speaking? Have they limited your rate of typing to x words per minute? Do you have to file a nfa application and wait a year, pay $500 to get a podium? Do you get the power of speech taken away from you after a felony conviction?
                                libel
                                incitement
                                defamation
                                slander
                                porn
                                fraud
                                obsecinty
                                panic inducing
                                crime inducing
                                sedition
                                Trust me?
                                I'm an economist!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X