The Political Party

[gspointer]

A week or two ago Dave acknowledged it would do little to nothing, but it would be a start.

[guido61]

---

TIMKEYS wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

---

TIMKEYS wrote:

---

---

all you are doing is playing a feel good liberal game of whack a mole.   Ban all guns and they will move to car bombs.  In this day and age I question if you will see the political winds to make any kind of national semi automatic weapons bans.  Enough people dont trust this goverment to go for it.  

---

No one is saying "Ban all guns".    Even if the proposed gun ban were passed, there would still be over 2,000 different makes and models of guns legally available for you to protect yourself with and for would-be bad guys to legally purchase and shoot you up with.

Problem is for your argument is that the 1934 NFA legislation WORKED:  it got those guns off the streets and no longer used in crimes.  The "if fully automatic guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have fully automatic guns" line proved to be false.  And those sorts of guns have been removed from our culture and public conciousness except as historical artifacts and something you see only in old James Cagney movies and "The Untouchables".  

---

The problem dave is that  you want to wage a war on the gun,,, and totally ingore that the fact that it did nothing to stop gun crime..   There is more mass murder today than there was back in the chicago mob gangster years when they had legal machine guns.    Obama wants to take guns away from legal owners but cant even stop gun crime in his own city of chicago with all the gun bans they have there.   Then he is going to hand F16s and tanks to the muslim brotherhood.   He was going to fix the economy and we just slipped below the water on GDP.   Americans are sick of these liberal fools and their dependant vote slaves.   They destroy everything they get their hands on.  

---

I'm not "waging a war on the gun".  There's just simply no logical point in having certain guns remain legal that serve much more bad purpose than good.  You don't need an AK-47 to protect yourself with.  They provide you no greater degree of protection, but they sure are useful for shooting up a lot of people in a short period of time.  In fact, that's really the ONLY advantage they have over many other guns.  They offer GREAT advantage for the bad guy, but virtually NO advantage for the good guy.

Why do you want to keep giving the bad guys all the advantage?

And then the rest of your post devolves into one of your typical non-sensical Obama rants.  But just to play along:

 Americans are sick of these consevative fools and their dependant vote slaves.   They destroy everything they get their hands on.  

Now we're even.

[TIMKEYS]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

---

What are you proposing?

---

 Background checks for all sales public and private. Registration of all firearms.   A system where virtually every gun is accounted for and traceable.  And where every sale and transfer is tracked.

I'd also like to see banning of certain types of guns and larger magazine sizes, but I doubt we'll actually get those through the present congress.  So I'll settle for the former for now, which I DO think is politically feasable.

---

Well, but none of this would have prevented the recent mass shootings, that's the problem with this. 

---

Its about controlling the populations with liberals ,,, laws are not about justice,, its about taking away liberty and controlling the people.   ya see obama doesnt fear the gangs and criminals,,, they are his voter base and will go right along with his fascist parties plans.  They think obama is going give them everything at the expense of others.

[guido61]

---

TIMKEYS wrote:

---

---

Its about controlling the populations with liberals ,,, laws are not about justice,, its about taking away liberty and controlling the people.   ya see obama doesnt fear the gangs and criminals,,, they are his voter base and will go right along with his fascist parties plans.  They think obama is going give them everything at the expense of others.

---

Do you actually read the stuff you post?

[LithiumZero]

Tim is a real genius lol 

[slodge]

---

willhaven wrote:

---

TIMKEYS wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

1) Which is why it works. The hurdles to own automatic weapons have been higher for decades, and, oddly enough, it seems to be difficult for criminals to get automatic weapons that were made legally. If they want automatics, they have to modify their way there, which rarely happens.

With the strict hurdles of mandatory background checks and paperwork, it takes more than one criminal to get an NFA firearm into the hands of a criminal. Whereas a criminal can go to a gun show and buy a semi-automatic firearm without a background check.

Clearly the hurdles to obtain an NFA weapon drive away criminals. Do the criminals just go buy an NFA firearm on the street? It doesn't seem to be the case very often.

From my perspective, the regulation seems to work quite well.

2) Yet there is still a consumer aftermarket for NFA weapons. And that's even with new manufacture of automatics banned for civilian purchase since the 1980s.

---

actually it hasnt worked due to the fact that we still have mass murders and will continue to have them because nuts and criminals just switched to other types of weapons.

---

"It hasn't worked because it worked so well that they had to use something else."

---

Don't forget all those incidents where someone killed 20 people with a baseball bat before they were stopped...

[guido61]

---

TIMKEYS wrote:

---

---

Its about controlling the populations with liberals ,,, laws are not about justice,, its about taking away liberty and controlling the people.   ya see obama doesnt fear the gangs and criminals,,, they are his voter base and will go right along with his fascist parties plans.  They think obama is going give them everything at the expense of others.

---

Its about controlling the populations with conservatives ,,, laws are not about justice,, its about taking away liberty and controlling the people.   ya see the republicans dont fear the gangs and criminals,,, they are their voter base and will go right along with their fascist parties plans.  They think the republicans are going give them everything at the expense of others.

[Gromit]

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

SHRED wrote:

Handguns and rifles registered and insured.

Buyers to receive a thorough background check and licensed for proof of proficiency. 

Sales involve proof of insurance and title transfer just like a vehicle.

Why not?

--

---

1. Owning firearms is a right, owning a car is not.

---

No it isn't.  If owning firearms was a right, the government would have to provide them free of charge to those who couldn't afford them.

[trevcda]

Completely off topic- David check your messages- thanks.

[thankyou]

---

rbstern wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

---

rbstern wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

We've been doing most of that with Class III firearms under the NFA since the 1930s. And guess what? It works.

---

Bullshit.  It simply makes it hard for honest people to have NFA items.  Criminals skip the paperwork and get them on the street.

---

With an estimated 250,000 legally registered NFA firearms, I think you're wrong.

Criminals get them on the street? Seriously? How many fully automatic weapons that were manufactured as fully automatic weapons are used in crimes? It's a tiny fraction.

---

The NFA registry is, by definition, for the law abiding.

Usng that as a yardstick for illegal automatic weapons activity is like saying communion wine production was a yardstick for how much alchohol was being distributed in the U.S. during prohibition.

The number of semi-auto rifles used in crimes is a tiny fraction, too.  But here we are, talking about bans and restrictions.

NFA type restrictions on all guns...that's a joke.  The ATF can't even handle paperwork on 0.1% of that amount in a timely matter. 

When restrictions become so onerous they drive consumers and marketers out of the market, it is a defacto ban.

---

You know why the ATF can't handle that paperwork.  Because it is, literally, paperwork.  At the behest of the NRA, the ATF, by law, must handle their records using technology that was abandoned sixty years ago.

Ned said this was no problem, because criminals never lose or ditch their guns after a crime, so tracking that weapon via computerized records is useless.  Yep, law'n'order can only go so far when you're jeopardizing a potential gun sale.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/25/AR2010102505823.html

[pink freud]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

nedezero1 wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

---

TIMKEYS wrote:

---

---

all you are doing is playing a feel good liberal game of whack a mole.   Ban all guns and they will move to car bombs.  In this day and age I question if you will see the political winds to make any kind of national semi automatic weapons bans.  Enough people dont trust this goverment to go for it.  

---

No one is saying "Ban all guns".    Even if the proposed gun ban were passed, there would still be over 2,000 different makes and models of guns legally available for you to protect yourself with and for would-be bad guys to legally purchase and shoot you up with.

Problem is for your argument is that the 1934 NFA legislation WORKED:  it got those guns off the streets and no longer used in crimes.  The "if fully automatic guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have fully automatic guns" line proved to be false.  And those sorts of guns have been removed from our culture and public conciousness except as historical artifacts and something you see only in old James Cagney movies and "The Untouchables".  

---

Hmmm....I wonder why banning alcohol didn't work. I wonder why banning drugs doesn't work....

Quite frankly making a semi-auto firearm fully automatic isn't any more difficult than manufacturing drugs or alcohol from a technical perspective.

And criminals/gangs do posses some fully automatic weapons...They just fall as a low prority, not to mention they're expensive to shoot.

http://www.ngcrc.com/ngcrc/ggunsp.pdf

---

Yeah, it's like "We won the war on cocaine. Now we have meth".

Let's cut to the chase:  The real puzzle we have to solve here is this - we must find a way to help libs feel all warm and superior without it involving them screwing OUR lives up.  We've got to quit pretending we're arguing substance here and work on that issue.  Maybe somebody can invent a drug?

---

Yeah, it's not like those conservatives ying for armed guards at every school weren't looking for a feel-good initiative either...

[360vodka]

so if i have to register my weapons then that means that under the Freedom of Information Act, my address and name and other information is available to the public. this is why states like my own and the state next door don't allow gun registration.

and BTW, you do NOT have a right to a car. doesn't say so in the constitution the way that it says you have a right TO BEAR ARMS!!!!!

[360vodka]

did you actually grow up in America? do you know how to read?

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

TIMKEYS wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

---

What are you proposing?

---

 Background checks for all sales public and private. Registration of all firearms.   A system where virtually every gun is accounted for and traceable.  And where every sale and transfer is tracked.

I'd also like to see banning of certain types of guns and larger magazine sizes, but I doubt we'll actually get those through the present congress.  So I'll settle for the former for now, which I DO think is politically feasable.

---

Well, but none of this would have prevented the recent mass shootings, that's the problem with this. 

---

Its about controlling the populations with liberals ,,, laws are not about justice,, its about taking away liberty and controlling the people.   ya see obama doesnt fear the gangs and criminals,,, they are his voter base and will go right along with his fascist parties plans.  They think obama is going give them everything at the expense of others.

---

Yeah, and less sinisterly, many rank and file libs just have a totally unrealistic idea of what government actually is.  Stand in line at your local motor vehicle office, or post office, while telling me that clerks are going to recognize patterns in gun purchases and stop a mass killer.  It's just wishful thinking, but meanwhile we're left with more paperwork and hassle and more budget shortfalls.

[McLovin]

---

SHRED wrote:

Handguns and rifles registered and insured.

Buyers to receive a thorough background check and licensed for proof of proficiency. 

Sales involve proof of insurance and title transfer just like a vehicle.

Why not?

--

---

Because AFAIK no politicians have talked about restricting or confiscating legally owned cars from lawful citizens. Giving them a list of exactly who owns what is a major step in that direction. 

[willhaven]

---

360vodka wrote:

did you actually grow up in America? do you know how to read?

---

Talking to yourself Al?

[McLovin]

---

newbie chick wrote:

---

notgonnadoit wrote:

What events and circumstances would this insurance cover, and what do you do if private insurers have no desire to issue such policies?

---

The NRA could make a few bucks by offering the liability insurance themselves on a not-for-net- profit basis. .

---

To a liberal we're always just one more law or regulation away from utopia.

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

 There's just simply no logical point in having certain guns remain legal that serve much more bad purpose than good.  You don't need an AK-47 to protect yourself with.  They provide you no greater degree of protection, but they sure are useful for shooting up a lot of people in a short period of time.  In fact, that's really the ONLY advantage they have over many other guns. 

I strikes me that this illustrates a big government nanny state mentality, the comes from the opposite pole of the original American dream:  You should have only what freedoms are necessary, and what those freedoms are will be determined by the government.  Freedom is not a natural right to be forfeited only by bad behavior, but something to be bestowed at the pleasure of government.  If you don't really need a liberty, we'll hold on to it for you.

So you don't need incadescent lightbulbs.  It doesn't matter that you like them and have never shot up a movie theater with them.  You don't need them, we think the curly Q ones are better, we're forbidding incadescent bulbs.  And really, what's with the tube amps?  They waste too much power and a transistor amp is just fine. You're only pretending you can hear a difference.

[Belva]

---

360vodka wrote:

so if i have to register my weapons then that means that under the Freedom of Information Act, my address and name and other information is available to the public. this is why states like my own and the state next door don't allow gun registration.

and BTW, you do NOT have a right to a car. doesn't say so in the constitution the way that it says you have a right TO BEAR ARMS!!!!!

---

Do you even know what a dictionary is? Look up the meaning of the word right. Your idiotic idea of what is a right would mean owning a computer isn't a right. Or how about owning the corned beef sandwich i'm eating while typing this? nope, I ain't got no right to it.

"There coming to take you away

Hoho, heehee

To the funny farm

Where life is beautiful

All the time"

[guido61]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

I strikes me that this illustrates a big government nanny state mentality, the comes from the opposite pole of the original American dream:  You should have only what freedoms are necessary, and what those freedoms are will be determined by the government.  Freedom is not a natural right to be forfeited only by bad behavior, but something to be bestowed at the pleasure of government.  If you don't really need a liberty, we'll hold on to it for you.

So you don't need incadescent lightbulbs.  It doesn't matter that you like them and have never shot up a movie theater with them.  You don't need them, we think the curly Q ones are better, we're forbidding incadescent bulbs.  And really, what's with the tube amps?  They waste too much power and a transistor amp is just fine. You're only pretending you can hear a difference.

---

If there were no bad behavior being displayed with the use of these sorts of weapons, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

But keep trying to gin up fear by pretending the "nanny state" is interested in taking away all your guns.  If that's the best argument you have, then I guess you'll have to run with it.