hey, what are the murderous deaths of twenty children when commerce is on the line?

[spanone]

just collateral damage in america.

the gun industry owns our politicians.

harry reid needs his ass carried out of the senate.

shameful and heartless.

[Melon_Lord]

1. Reid is a realist...

He knows that bringing it up, just to have it lose big, would be a sign of weakness.

[spanone]

2. bullshit

[Melon_Lord]

4. Deep thoughts...

Are you saying it wouldn't have lost?

Or that losing would not be a sign of weakness?

[spanone]

6. tell that to the parents and keep your 'deep thoughts' bs to yourself

[Melon_Lord]

10. Emotional hyperbole aside...

You would do well to apply some critical thought to the problem.

Something that makes you feel warm and fuzzy but does nothing to prevent a Sandy Hook style shooting and harms your own party is not worth it.

[laundry_queen]

12. Is emotional hyperbole your new talking point?

I think I've seen 6 or 7 gun nuts repeat that verbatim over the last day or so. Y'all get together and decide that it's not okay to get upset over 20 kids being slaughtered in a murderous rampage or something?

[AgingAmerican]

107. Its the latest Wayne Lapierre/Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh gun talking point

n/t

[jmg257]

66. Hmm...getting emotional over something besides an AR-15 with a huge mag...

Might be worth trying sometime.

Those warm and fuzzy feelings you get from stroking your gun might just diminish enough to see the damage fulfilling your selfish needs with little restriction has on the rest of society.

[Melon_Lord]

70. It's cute...

... How you go straight to gun worship and stroking as you apparently have nothing of substance to say.

Maybe you can dig up a small penis joke and get the full hat trick.

[jmg257]

71. It was the things you choose to get all emotional over that tipped me off.

An AR....Mmm...that's nice.


I know after a tragedy like Newtown people tend to surround themselves with those they love.

You better go to the gunstore to get a few more while you can!

[Melon_Lord]

77. I don't own one...

Except for my government issued M4 of course...

I think you would have trouble pointing out where I became emotional. Unless you count amusement as an emotion I suppose.

In any case, controllers will only really be taken seriously when they can come up with logical rules and regulations that don't infringe on those who take their rights seriously and have never illegaly harmed another person with their weapons.

Appeals to emotion work in the short term but it eventually fades. You can try and bring it back as seen by those who want to publish bloody pictures of murdered children but once it's gone it's gone and you'll have to provide legitimate reasoning for the laws you want to change.

It can't just be legitimate in your eyes btw...

Good luck...

[jmg257]

79. Sorry, but as part of a society your rights just might have to be infringed a bit,

so those that remain can be better secured - the rights for all....it's the whole purpose we institute govts in the 1st place. And why there is government interest to see regulations are enacted.


Once you or some other 'law-abiding gun owner' illegally harm someone with your/their weapons, it's too late isn't it? Better to learn from reality, and try to control things as much as possible before the next time.

[URL=/][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Uploaded with [URL=http://imageshack.us]ImageShack.us[/URL]

[Melon_Lord]

81. Ahhh

I see..

Back to the whole "Innocent until you aren't" thing...

Every man is a potential rapist right? Everyone is a potential murderer until they become one right?

The point, is that the regulations coming out as a result of Sandy Hook would in no way have prevented the incident if they had been in place prior.

Magazine changes? Pshaw... He would have brought more...

Feature's requirement on certain weapons? Old ones are grandfathered and new ones will have subtle changes to allow for their purchase and sale and transfer...

Using your logic everyone should have cameras installed in their home because even if they haven't committed a crime... they might.

If it saves one life isn't it worth it to have your rights abridged just a little?

What if they police were allowed to come into your home and search anytime they wanted? I'm sure they would find plans to harm others, interrupt deadly domestic disputes and enforce a multitude of other laws.

If it saves one life isn't it worth it?



You nailed it with your last sentence...

Better to learn from reality, and try to control things as much as possible before the next time

You don't like the decisions that other people make and you are scared so it's important to control those decisions and leave them to better and wiser people.

Like you...

[jmg257]

86. No need to go through the NRA list...I KNOW the AWB didn't/doesn't do enough.

Yep - everyone is lawful, right up until they aren't. Since 'lawful' gun-owners who suddenly aren't tend to kill a bunch of people with guns, they do deserve a little extra attention...all that government interest stuff.


I'm sorry - I didn't realize the new AWB included warrantless searches and installing cameras in everyone's home...have a link please?

As for the real bills w/o strawmen?..

1 life isn't worth it, but 20 or 30 at a clip? 30,00 a year? Yes - WELL WORTH IT!

I realize you may have to find another hobby, or love interest, if you find your gun fetish becomes a bit too cramped or inconvenienced by new regulations. But THAT is worth it.


[URL=/][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Uploaded with [URL=http://imageshack.us]ImageShack.us[/URL]

[Melon_Lord]

88. You missed the point...

... or likely ignored it as you have no reasonable response.

The point is that it would save lives to do those things (warrantless searches, cameras etc...) but no one suggests it because it is an infringment on personal liberty.

It is just as silly to make these arbitrary rules (X number of bulets per magazine, certain features are A-ok, certain ones are not) to make yourself feel better when they won't even have the desired affect.

It still seems to be all about control because someone is making decisions you don't like and you are scared.

[jmg257]

92. I got the point, you feel mag limits and weapons bans

infringe on your personal liberty to keep and bear arms. I responded to this point...

I agree - they do - a bit. But they are worth it for the good of society. No good reason not to in fact, as you still can enjoy the liberties of self-defense, serve in the Militia, use guns for other lawful purposes like hunting and target shooting, etc. etc.

I'm not generally scared of someone making decisions I don't like. I'm scared that some gun fucker with an AR-15 will make the decision to go into a school or theater or mall and shoot up a bunch of people. Limiting the ability of ALL gun fuckers to do so via lawful enactments that add more regulations to guns and their accoutrements (even though they may inconvenience gun owners) are WELL worth it.


[URL=/][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Uploaded with [URL=http://imageshack.us]ImageShack.us[/URL]

[baldguy]

5. Reid is a coward.

The last election proved that the NRA is a paper tiger, the LEAST effective lobbying group out there. And national support for gun control - and the assault weapons ban in particular - is and has been growing, not diminishing. The public is not going to forget who supported it in Congress and who opposed it, and vote accordingly.

[Recursion]

7. Mostly because people have no idea what it means

They think the assault weapons ban bans assault weapons rather than regulating how they can look.

[baldguy]

13. That's the RW spin about the 1994 assault weapons ban, not what was proposed now.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary

[Recursion]

14. No, it's still how the bill is, except it's one feature rather than two

That wasn't "right wing spin" then and it's not now. I'm very sorry that this bill doesn't do what you think it does, but the fact remains.

If this passed, AR-15's will still be manufactured and sold, but with different grip shapes. Won't that be an awesome accomplishment!!!

[Peter cotton]

16. It also prohibits the transfer of previously manufactured firearms and magazines.

That's something the 1994 version didn't do.

[Recursion]

20. Even if it retroactively confiscated them, it doesn't keep a gunsmith from producing the Shrubmaster

The Shrubmaster BS-16 with a Monte Carlo grip, rather than the Bushmaster AR-15 with the pistol grip.

Why on earth does anybody care about doing that?

[Peter cotton]

25. I didn't say the AWB made sense...!

Obviously, it doesn't. While I disagree with banning semiautomatics or handguns, I can at least see the rationale behind it...but banning cosmetic features is pointless.

[baldguy]

17. I guess you missed the part about AR-15s being specifically prohibited, huh?

Why don't you try actually reading the thing before regurgitating the pro-criminal NRA talking point.

[Recursion]

19. I have, have you? You're right: it will not be the AR-15, but the BS-16

And the Bushmaster will be the Shrubmaster.

Why is it so important to you that the gun not be called an "AR-15", and not have that grip shape?

[AgingAmerican]

29. Pistol grips lessen recoil for faster, more accurate follow up shots

This is directly from Brownell's ad: "Helps control muzzle climb during sustained fire for quicker, more accurate follow-up shots"

See ad here

Translation, you can kill more people, faster. The "It's cosmetic" spin/RW talking point comes from Rush Limbaugh and Wayne LaPierre.

[Recursion]

30. Neither is true

Nor is the often-repeated claim that they help you shoot from the hip.

I wish senior members of our party weren't lying about this, but they are.

EDIT: that said, let's grant that it's not a lie arguendo: you think it's worth it to require AR-15's to be named something else and have slightly more recoil and less control during sustained fire? Really? And if the problem is the grip, why limit the AWB to semi-automatics with detachable magazines? And why ban the name "AR-15" or "Bushmaster"? Does either name contribute to mass shootings?

[AgingAmerican]

32. Ah, so the gun manufacturers are LYING!!

And Limbaugh and LaPierre are right!

lol

[Recursion]

34. Of course they are lying. All manufacturers do

The point of a pistol grip is that it reduces accidental drops when you're running and walking; that's why militaries use it, along with the fact that it enforces proper shooting posture. For that matter, it's a safer grip than the traditional grip, and we should be mandating it rather than banning it.

I'm still curious why you care what brand name the rifle is sold under?

[AgingAmerican]

38. lol

n/t

[AgingAmerican]

44. What lies are we hearing from the manufacturers of the Slinky?

This ought to be good...

[Peter cotton]

15. That's a fair point; the proposed AWB is far more draconian than the 1994 version.

The 2013 version prohibits the transfer of assault weapons and high capacity magazines, whereas the previous version simply prohibited their manufacture.

Luckily, the 2013 version has virtually no chance of passage.

[baldguy]

18. Right. All those children that will be killed because of Reid's cowardice are real lucky.

[Recursion]

21. How about the much more numerous children killed by handguns...

... the regulation of which is being held hostage by some Democrats' obsession with changing the names and grip shapes of the guns that kill the least amount of people nationwide?

[baldguy]

23. The obvious answer is to prohibit all gun sales.

But your pals at the NRA and other RW extremists would howl in pain if we tried to do that.

Any gun of any type in circulation is a threat to public safety. Most aren't used for hunting or protection. They are merely dangerous toys and status symbols. The reasonable policy would be to stop putting more of them into circulation. But in doing so some RW extremist gun nuts would - with the support of a large part of the gun nut community - actually start shooting innocent people in order to "get their fix". This probable violent reaction of the extremist gun nut community DEFINES them as being a threat to public safety, along with their guns.

Unfortunately, America continues to labor under this threat from RW extremist gun nuts - and they have political power. So we can only pass these laws and others, and allow the number of guns to be reduced by attrition. It's not the best way; it's not the simplest way; it's not the most reasonable way. But it's the only way that's left open to us.

[Recursion]

27. But an AWB would make gun sales of semi-automatic rifles go *up*, not down

Can you really not see that?

Say we pass this AWB, and Bushmaster has to change its rifle from the Bushmaster AR-15 to the Shrubmaster BS-16, with a modified grip. It fires at the exact same rate, because we aren't banning guns that can fire X number of bullets in 60 seconds, we're saying that the fastest-firing kind of gun can't be called a "Bushmaster" or have a pistol grip.

Everybody goes and buys one. How on earth do you think this is a good thing? I thought we were trying to limit the number of guns in circulation, not increase it?

[AgingAmerican]

36. Yes, banning things always increases availability, how did we not catch that!!

RW math in action.

[Recursion]

39. Do you honestly not understand that this doesn't ban semi-automatic rifles?

Seriously, are we at least on the same page there? This does not ban semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. Do you at least grasp that fact?

[AgingAmerican]

42. Do you honestly not understand that 5 minus 2 does not equal 7?

n/t

[hack89]

51. The stupidity of the new AWB in two pictures.

This gun is specifically called out in the legislation as being illegal under the AWB:




This gun is specifically called out in the legislation as being legal under the AWB:



They are both Ruger Mini-14s

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html

What is going to happen when gun manufacturers simply make their rifles look like the bottom rifle? There will be no more "assault rifles ". Will we be any safer?

[AgingAmerican]

54. From the pistol grip manufacturer:

"Lightweight vertical grip clamps securely to Picatinny forend rail to give the operator a more comfortable shooting stance and better weapon control. Helps control muzzle climb during sustained fire for quicker, more accurate follow-up shots, and minimizes hand fatigue when holding weapon in the ready position for long periods of time."

Kill more children, faster!

[hack89]

57. So just how much safer is that bottom rifle?

same bullet, same rate of fire, same size magazine.

Are you saying Sandy Hook would have been impossible if the shooter had one?

[AgingAmerican]

58. Recoil management = faster more accurate follow up shots = more dead children in less time

n/t

[hack89]

60. So Sandy Hook could have only been done by an AR-15?

and before you answer, think about Va Tech.

[AgingAmerican]

61. Sandy hook WAS done with an AR-15

So, Hiroshima could only have been leveled by a NUKE? And before you answer, think about Dresden.

[hack89]

63. So if there were no AR-15s then Sandy Hook would never had happened? nt

[AgingAmerican]

64. If there was no AR-15 not as many children would be dead

Why are guns more important to you than the lives of small children?

[hack89]

65. They are not.

So the Va Tech shooter killed 32 young healthy adults on a college campus - yet he would not be able kill 20 first graders? Really?

The point is simple - you are backing a law that will have no impact on mass killings. Plain and simple. If a law would not have stopped Va Tech then it will not stop mass killing.

[AgingAmerican]

67. So, if they don't stop or lessen the damage from every single mass shooting...

only some of them....they are completely useless?

You are tying yourself into a pretzel! RW talking points have a way of doing that.

[hack89]

68. If you don't concentrate on the deadliest weapons used in the majority of mass shootings

you are not making a real difference.

[AgingAmerican]

73. Gun massacres sell guns

Sad fact. No gun control = more massacres = more guns sold.

Welcome to right wing world.

[hack89]

74. Calls to ban guns seems to be working fine as well.

The NRA appreciates your help I am sure.

[AgingAmerican]

76. There is no call for banning guns

That is a Wayne LaPierre talking point.

He appreciates you furthering the talking point, I am sure.

[hack89]

78. At DU there are plenty. An extremist minority I take it? nt

[AgingAmerican]

91. Actually the gun nuts are the only extremist minority I have seen here.

n/t

[Peter cotton]

28. The number of guns isn't being reduced through attrition.

In fact, they're flying off the shelves as fast as they can be manufactured. There will will be something in the ballpark of 100 million firearms manufactured and imported in the US in the next 10 years.

[baldguy]

40. What part of "prohibit all gun sales" don't you understand.

This is the solution to Recursion's problem with handguns, which the pro-criminal, anti-gun control types never seem to have an answer for.

[Peter cotton]

49. Are you seriously asserting that such a proposal has the slightest chance of being enacted?

[baldguy]

59. Where's you proposal?

[Peter cotton]

62. You didn't answer my question, but I'll be happy to answer yours.

For your convenience, I'll repeat the question so you can answer it in your next post:

Are you seriously asserting that such a proposal (banning all future gun sales) has the slightest chance of being enacted?

Now, as for your question: I presume you're asking about my feelings toward gun regulation in general. My wish list:

1. Nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry.
2. Repeal of the 1986 ban on new manufacture of fully automatic firearms for civilian ownership.
3. No longer make sound suppressors an ATF item that requires a $200 tax stamp and an 8 month wait for the paperwork to be processed.

That's all.

[baldguy]

72. So, nothing to actually reduce the ongoing gun massacre

& everything to make it easier for criminals to get guns, easier for criminals to carry guns during their crimes, and easier for criminals to kill innocent people. I'm sure Wayne LaPierre, Adam Lanza, William H. Spengler and Jared Lee Loughner would all thank you for your support.

You're not even on the same planet as the rest of us rational people if you think MORE guns is any kind of answer to the problems being addressed here.

[AgingAmerican]

75. More guns = more guns in the hands of criminals

Where do they believe these guns originate? Guns used in crimes originate with legal gun sales.

[Peter cotton]

93. Shrug. You asked. I answered.

[MattBaggins]

109. As a NYer.. No

We have the right to our own standards and laws. Don't come here if you don't like that.

[DanTex]

35. To say it's "how they can look" is dishonest.

Pistol grips, forward grips, and adjustable stocks are all functional features. To pretend that these are cosmetic features, like, say, a racing stripe on a sports car, is simply dishonest.

If you want to argue that the functional features addressed by the assault weapons ban wouldn't significantly limit the killing potential, then you should say that. That's a fair debate to have. But to dismiss them as cosmetic is inaccurate, and in a sense, this is an admission of the weakness of the argument against the assault weapons ban.

[Recursion]

37. Oh, so you're fine with an AR-15 that has a different grip shape?

If the grip is really the problem, OK: let's pass the AWB and have the newly-minted Shrubmaster BS-16 with a Monte Carlo grip fly off the shelves. You're telling me you're fine with that, because they have the "right" grip shape?

[DanTex]

80. All I said was: a pistol grip, forward grip, and folding stock can't honestly be called "cosmetic"

because they obviously affect the way a gun handles. Do you disagree with me?

If you really think it is so obvious that the assault weapons ban is pointless, then why do you to resort to clearly false statements as part of your critique?

[Recursion]

83. Yes, I do

The only impact a pistol grip has is that it makes the rifle marginally safer to carry and use. Telescoping stocks let a rifle take on a series of legal lengths; it's ridiculous to say I can have a rifle that's 28" long or 26" long but not one that can be both. Forward grips, like pistol grips, simply make a rifle marginally safer to use; in that sense both are marginally "functional", but are things we should be mandating rather than banning, if anything.


If you really think it is so obvious that the assault weapons ban is pointless, then why do you to resort to clearly false statements as part of your critique?

You must be thinking of someone else

[DanTex]

90. Well, now we are getting somewhere. But here's the thing.

I have never fired a rifle with a pistol grip, or a forward grip. But it is plainly obvious these are not "cosmetic" features. My guess, and also based on their popularity and prevalence in military rifles, is that they would make a gun more easy to maneuver.

So now you are telling me that they actually make a rifle safer, but wouldn't make it any easier to kill lots of people. OK, this is at least possible, but the problem is, one post ago, you were claiming that they were "cosmetic," which is not possible, so now I'm not sure if I believe you.

[Recursion]

95. I said "if anything" it makes it "marginally" safer

The effect is small and only noticeable when you have a few million conscript troops running around, for the most part.

[DanTex]

102. You don't think it makes it easier to handle?

That a pistol grip and a front grip would make it easier to keep a rifle controlled and steady if you are firing a lot of shots quickly?

For example, here are some posts about a front grip from a gun forum:

For any situation when speed or handling are more important than accuracy, a vertical front grip is best. It's more comfortable, you have better latteral control over the gun and you can control recoil better. Also, there's much less heat conducted into your hand. For longer range shooting, don't use it though as more movement is transferred from your hand into the gun than when resting the gun on your hand, as you would with a standard fore end.

Advantages:

Quicker initial sight picture.
Faster followup shots. (If you have a good forend that you can grip easily this advantage disapears.)

Disadvantages:

More difficult to shoot prone. (Not a problem with a folding FPG.)
Less steady shooting offhand.
Can snag on stuff.
Make the gun front heavy. (Yes I know they make lightweight ones, but why hang more weight up front than you have too.)

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-212413.html

In other words, just the kind of stuff that gun control advocates are saying: it makes it easy to get off a lot of shots quickly, but isn't really helpful for things like hunting where you need accuracy over longer ranges.

Sure, some other people on that board respond that they don't like the front grip, and don't find it useful. But a good number of them do, and these people are not gun-haters who are just looking for excuses for a gun ban.

So, again, for you to flatly claim that this is a "cosmetic" feature is simply dishonest.

Maybe you personally don't like using a front grip, but that doesn't mean that, for a lot of other people, they do make it easier to fire a lot of shots quickly.

[Recursion]

104. My audiophile friends swear to me vinyl sounds better too

Hobbyists can convince themselves of anything.

[krawhitham]

111. If he does not have the votes he does not have the votes

It is better to not vote on this than to have it voted down if you know you are going to lose. You make this the wedge issue for 2014 and elect people who will vote for it.

If it is voted down the repukes will claim the will of the people have spoken

[baldguy]

114. And by refusing to put it up for a vote, there's no way for us to know which Dems won't support it.

DINOs can play both sides of the fence that way.

[ChangeUp106]

8. RE: Reid

You bring the bill up to vote and when it gets defeated, you raise holy hell about the people who voted against it. The people against the ban are deep down afraid to be embarrassed in the national spotlight.

[HereSince1628]

11. Must losing be a sign of weakness?

It seems to me that throughout history it has been common to lose a battles and yet win a wars.

What makes American politics a place where such turn around cannot occur?

[Melon_Lord]

24. Given the choice he would always prefer to win...

Losing is weakness and a setback.

[HereSince1628]

31. Why must losing always be negative?

I think that's a presumption and I'm not at all sure it is correct.

Losing the Alamo, losing Ft Sumter, losing Pearl Harbor, were surely loses but they were also rallying points.

Is it not possible for a political loss to be seen as so egregiously wrong that it rallies an opposition?


Unwillingness to engage precludes the possibility of such a rallying, and, as has been shown for 5 years is in itself extremely demoralizing for the base.

The weakness of a demoralized base of its self presents certain strategic and a tactical disadvantages.

[Paladin]

3. Yeah Right. Harry Reid: Pillar Of Strength. (nt)

(Sarcasm alert, for those in need of it.)

[boston bean]

9. We need a new majority leader in the senate.

He's weak sauce. Except when he uses his power to keep bills from the floor he doesn't want to vote on.

[Newest Reality]

22. This can just underscore

the systemic problems of profit trumping the overall well-being of people.

An assumptive public exposed to a facade of public relations, media promotion and feel good propaganda will fail to notice that altruism, (and related synonyms) has a negligible relationship to the underlying imperative of the bottom line.

If we continue like that, then those who have internalized the system-at-large will live in a delusional state of denial where they project their inculcated ideas of decency and values onto the actual motivations of the economic system saying, in a sense, "They wouldn't do that!" Actually, maybe you wouldn't do that, but the fear of realizing your actual situation supports the inverted tyranny of being an apologist, to some degree, or living in a form of denial that allows excuses to comfort the threatening aspects of the situation we find ourselves in.

What is that situation? Those who would let you get sick, die, etc., if profits where the deciding factor, own most of the wealth. They control a major portion of the financial sector. They own and supply most of what you require to survive. They have such a substantial influence on the political arena and lawmaking that the word democracy is hardly relevant in the dictionary definition sense since it technically means the illusion they create of said while serving their own best interests.

That's a rock in a hard place since the alternatives to corporate rule, (and the families that hold the controlling stocks in them and sit on the boards) are not only meager, (resource-wise) but they are dwindling rapidly as the megalithic structures emerge and ascend.

[malaise]

26. They are the price we pay for the freedom of the gun manufacturers to make money

Neither they nor the owned politicians give a flying fugg

[djean111]

41. Why would you even say that? The 20 children have just brought the killings to national view.

Oh, and the answer to the OP question is no, nothing is more important to some than unregulated guns.
The 20 children, and any other deaths, are "unfortunate".

[djean111]

47. Someone here posts all the child shooting deaths (that can be found and linked to) Every Single Week

So, yeah, you can read about other deaths here. The 20 children we are talking about are a horrible symbol of what happens all over the country.

[malaise]

45. WTF is that about?

[djean111]

52. People here talk about a lot of gun deaths.

Maybe it is worth your while to look around some.
Of course, DU cannot speak for the rest of the world. But other gun deaths are noted all the time.

[malaise]

55. Well the death of 20 under eight children and their teachers days before Christmas

was the last straw for most sane people .

[aikoaiko]

46. Much of the AWB is a deeply flawed approach to reducing gun violence.

Killing 20 children with a DiFi approved AR-15 style rifle isn't any less tragic or destructive. The only thing different about the rifle used in the sandy Hook shooting and one that would be DiFi approved and AWB compliant is the shape of the grip.

Do you really think that would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter? I don't.

In fact, the one that was used was compliant with the old national AWB and current CT AWB.

And that's what makes the AWB a bad bill that shouldn't see the light of day.

[AgingAmerican]

50. Would it have stopped him, no...

would he have been able to kill as many without it? No...

From the manufacturer

"Lightweight vertical grip clamps securely to Picatinny forend rail to give the operator a more comfortable shooting stance and better weapon control. Helps control muzzle climb during sustained fire for quicker, more accurate follow-up shots, and minimizes hand fatigue when holding weapon in the ready position for long periods of time."

What is flawed are your RW talking points. Perhaps you need a pistol grip on your NRA logic. Your positions are causing you mental muzzle climb thus reducing your ability to produce quicker, more accurate follow up rhetoric.

[aikoaiko]

53. There is no evidence that AWB grips versus standard grips significantly reduce firing rates

or ease of use, but if you believe the marketing dept of AR15 accessory sellers then so be it.

You should know that your link and quoted text refer to the wrong type of grip. The grip at stake with the proposed AWB is on the lower receiver and not attached to the forend rail.

The AWB is mostly junk and won't be law. I encourage you to support gun control laws that may impact gun violence more.

[AgingAmerican]

56. Yes, the manufacturers are lying!!

The US military has been duped!

lol

[Melon_Lord]

84. As someone who regularly gets a chance to use both...

Anyone serious about accuracy will ditch the damn pistol grip...

Looks cool but doesn't do diddly except add more break to your arm and make it more difficult to stay on target...

[Recursion]

85. The US military doesn't use forward grips, which is what that press release is about (nt)

[jmg257]

69. Yes, we all understand it doesn't nearly go far enough. We also understand

that is a necessary compromise due to the NRA and their dupes fighting any significant regulations tooth and nail. As DiFi said in '94 - she would get all of the AW if she could, but she knew then that was impossible, so she did what she could. Sure she is thinking the same thing now.

We get it. We all know the sure way to substanitally reduce the number of gun-related deaths is to substantially reduce the number of guns. In the mean time they'll break up the bill so to limit capacity, enforce background checks, etc. Which still won't be enough.

[Recursion]

87. It's not a compromise; it's simply a stupid idea that doesn't address anything important at all

A compromise would be Feinstein saying "I want to ban all repeating firearms" and the NRA saying "we don't want to ban anything" and hashing out a deal in which semi-automatics with fixed or internal magazines are allowed but not with detachable magazines.

This is literally a bunch of gun control activists saying "we want to ban guns that look military, while leaving equally capable guns that don't look military alone". It's absolutely stupid, and it bothers me that so many Democrats have been duped by this.

[jmg257]

89. Of course, that's what most assault weapons are...

semi-auto versions of military asssault rifles. They all tend to have a few certain features in common, which tends to seperate them from more traditional sporting arms.

Since those features may be used to draft legislation that can control the numbers, it is a fair way of distinguishing them. Not perfect - but fair. If some similiar-capable guns make it through? Ah well - the laws can always be expanded.


What we need is an 'authority having jurisdiction' that can adjust the banned/allowed lists on the fly.

[Recursion]

97. The problem has never been what guns are available, but to whom they are available

If somebody can't be trusted with an AR-15, I don't trust him with a revolver either.

[jmg257]

98. Agreed. Currently if they are available to you and I, they are available to just about everyone.

Lanza couldn't get them from a store, but he was able to get them from his Mom - and kill her with them in the process.

If they weren't availble, his Mom couldn't get them, and then he couldn't either.

[Recursion]

99. Which is why I support universal background checks on all transfers, and stopping GOP stonewalling..

... of enforcement of trafficking and straw purchase laws. Hell, I'm even behind the idea of a Federal Firearms Operator's License to make the process easier for everybody.

One or two big Federal stings would do a lot more for public safety than any number of specific gun model bans.

[jmg257]

100. I think we talked about this before, but honestly I forget - would you support

registration?

WHile UBC would help some, registration would make a BIG difference in limiting straw purchases and better controlling illegal flow of arms.

[Recursion]

101. I would. Militias generally have musters, you know?

I think as a practical matter we'd have better luck getting that through the states, but there would have to be big carrots and sticks involved there.

EDIT: basically, my view is that people who can buy weapons should pretty much be able to buy any weapon they want (even to the point of overturning the Hughes Amendment) but that at least local law enforcement should know about them.

Before anyone says "this will lead to confiscation", automatic weapons have been registered for decades, and never been confiscated.

[AgingAmerican]

94. It only addresses the ability of the mass shooter to kill more victims faster

Why get so emotional over guns? My RW brother gets all emotional over guns.

[Recursion]

96. Good question! Why are you so emotional over the grip shape of guns?

I don't get it.

[AgingAmerican]

103. I'm not

I'm just pointing out what the manufacturer of the grip says. You are the one all bent out of shape over the thought of a few watered down, lukewarm gun controls. You and my RW brother.

[Recursion]

105. I'm not bent out of shape over the infringement. I don't think the AWB is a "rights infringement"

I think it's an issue of stupid legislation that should be opposed for being stupid.

[AgingAmerican]

106. Hmmmm, now where have I heard that before?

Oh, yes now I remember... Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin.

[Recursion]

108. I wouldn't know. I've never watched them.

Why do you?

[AgingAmerican]

110. Watch it

They are saying the EXACT same things you are, same exact phrases used, verbatim. Carbon copy.

Coincidence?

[Recursion]

113. Clearly

Since as I said I've never watched them.

[AgingAmerican]

115. You should

It would give you a better perspective on the birthplace of your talking points.

[Recursion]

116. Well, we should stop making Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin right, then

It's absolutely stupid that we're giving them factual talking points they can use. For that matter, if Obama came out against the AWB today Hannity and Malkin would be on TV tomorrow talking about what a great idea it is. Come to think of it, I like that idea.

[aikoaiko]

117. The proposed bill would not reduce the number of guns bought at all.

The same AR that was in the Sandy Hook shooting would be available with a different grip which would have no impact on the death rate.

AR rifles become very popular during the previous AWB and there were sold in compliance with the law.

[jmg257]

118. Right. But one thing about laws...they can always be modified to avoid grip change bypasses

&c. Maybe even by making someone an authority who can decide such things 'on the fly'.

And mag cap bans would still be in effect, maybe even expanded to cover grandfathering, transfers or whatnot.

[99Forever]

82. If I were to say here...

... what I really think of Harry Reid and a number of other "Democrats"...


... well, I just won't.

[samsingh]

112. to gun lover's inconvenience in their love affair with guns means more than the

lives of these children.