Machineguns - th Truman Solution

[Frodo_Baggins]

Machineguns – the Truman Solution

As I write this, we have a little over one hundred sixty days left until the expiration of the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban". It is clear to absolutely anybody who cares to look, that the ban will indeed expire – even the VPC has given up on this one. It is the first time in modern Western history that a major gun law is being repealed. We can now smile and screw flash suppressors on to our rifles. But the question is, what do we do from here?
There is really two answers here: the NRA solution and the Truman solution. Imagine the NRA has a legislative victory (like, for example, stopping a federal trigger lock bill from passing). What would the NRA do? Well, given that the NRA position is that they want to 'enforce existing law' and 'support existing laws, with the exception of the semi-auto ban', the NRA would then rest on their laurels and screw flash suppressors on to their AR-15s – until the next anti-gun bill comes up.
The NRA solution has proved it's falsehood time and time again, from the American shores to the Australian plains. Years ago, the United Kingdom had an organization similar in purpose to the US NRA – the UK-NRA, upon which the Americans have originally based theirs. It's still around. It has about two thousands members. They are currently bracing for a government ban on de-activated firearms.
But despite opposition from conservative NRA leaders such as LaPierre, there's a new solution, discussed at gun rights conferences and brought up on Internet forums. It has very little media time, but it's there, and it's slowly starting to happen. That is what I call the Truman solution. Truman is often credited with being one of the people that started the Cold War and stopped the advance of Communism. He is quoted saying "If our only goal is to remain where we are, we will be driven back".
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the matter. To truly be able to defeat the anti-gun crowd – and in fact, to truly be able to defend freedom – it is not sufficient that we only stand and try to stop tyranny's advance. To fight for freedom – any freedom – is only possible when you goal is to make sure that your children have more freedom tomorrow than you do today.
What does this mean for you and me, today, on the gun rights front? Very simple, comrade. We must repeal a gun law. You are now probably thinking "How?". Well, I might not be the expert to ask, but here's my suggestion: Let us start by small rocks. After all, it's by throwing small rocks down the slope that you start an avalanche. What is our rock going to be?
I suggest the 1986 machinegun ban. Here are some of the reasons: on one hand, it is blatantly stupid and pointless (crime with legally-owned private squirt guns is about as common as traffic violations with Lamborghini Diablos.). On the other, it is blatantly unfair, restricting ownership of the weapons to the rich only – class warfare at it's best (or worst).
So imagine this: a group of dedicated grassroots Internet activists start spreading the message about repealing the 1986 ban. The ban is so blatantly pointless that any group speaking out against a repeal would embarrass itself to no end (the fact that an NRA spokesperson went on the air and said she wouldn't want to "repeal the machinegun ban" without any negative results is something that only happened the interview never got much publicity, so it's neither here nor there). Eventually the ban would get overturned… and become a stepping stone for further repeals.
And if we don’t mess it up horribly, there’s absolutely no reason how this will not work. So, is there a good, honest reason out there not to go and drive this one extra nail in the coffin of tyranny?

[FeebMaster]

1. I don't know that I'd say the AWB was being repealed.

It had a sunset clause written into it. Repealing something requires further action and it is never going to happen.

Most people don't even know about the FOPA and you are never going to convince them to repeal the civilian machine gun ban portion of it. You can't even convince people that getting rid of the AWB is a good idea and you think you're somehow going to get them to allow more machine guns into private hands? A good chunk of these people think the AWB is about machine guns. They have no interest in firearms law.

The '86 ban isn't pointless and it is hardly a small rock. It froze the civilian supply of machine guns. When the last one breaks, that's it, civilian ownership of machine guns is over in this country. It might take a hundred years but eventually it will happen. I'd be surprised if you could convince most gun owners that it would be a good idea to repeal it if you could even get what the law does through their heads.

[Frodo_Baggins]

3. When the last one breaks

They'll fix it. It's legal to fix them.

[FeebMaster]

4. The receivers will wear out eventually. (nt)

[Young Socialist]

2. Didn't the 9th circuit court just

rule the 1986 ban illegal and that people could manufacture for their own use, US versus Stewart? basically this guy was selling 50BMG kits and had a couple of hom-made stens and got caught. he would have walked except he tried to get the judge whacked. I'm sure it will get challenged as soon as ATF busts someone with an un-registered MG and it will get sent to the SCOTUS for their oppinion. basically the 9th called bullshit on the interstate commerce clause being used to ban them
edited to add link, don't know if this source is approved or will turn out to be from a "lunatic asswipe reichwing cesspool", whatever.
http://lawschool.mikeshecket.com/constitutionallaw/unitedstatesvstewart.htm

[iverglas]

5. yes!

Oh -- no. Darn. I had my US presidents mixed up.

I was thinking of the Roosevelt solution.

freedom of speech,
freedom of worship,
freedom from want, and
freedom from fear

I wonder: how do they fit in with the Truman solution?

From the opening post:

To truly be able to defeat the anti-gun crowd – and in fact, to truly be able to defend freedom – it is not sufficient that we only stand and try to stop tyranny's advance. To fight for freedom – any freedom – is only possible when you goal is to make sure that your children have more freedom tomorrow than you do today.

"Any freedom"?

I wonder how many children a couple of generations hence will be thanking all the RKBAers who follow this advice, for their work to guarantee that they have the "freedom" to own machine guns ... and how many will be spitting on their graves for doing nothing to guarantee them freedom from want or freedom from fear (I'm afraid that "doing nothing to guarantee" might just be seen by them as a bit of an understatement) ...

So imagine this: a group of dedicated grassroots Internet activists start spreading the message about
repealing the 1986 ban. ... And if we don’t mess it up horribly, there’s absolutely no reason how this will not work. So, is there a good, honest reason out there not to go and drive this one extra nail in the coffin of tyranny?

I guess I'm just imagining what said group of dedicated grassroots Internet activists might accomplish if they started spreading the message about how many USAmericans (never mind the rest of the world even) live in want and fear -- say, in want of health care, and in fear of their or their children's lives being lost or destroyed by disability or disease -- and about how decent health care could be so simply and cost-effectively provided to every person in the US.

And wondering what good, honest reason there might be for not going and doing everything possible to yank that nail from the coffin of the 40,000,000+ USAmericans who live in that want and fear daily, and freeing them from the tyranny of treatable disease and disability.

I'm sure there must be one. Maybe another fine Democrat, Robert Kennedy, would have a question here too.

And I wonder what Harry Truman would think about having his name attached to this particular "solution". I don't know enough to guess ... but I notice that the right wing RKBA crowd in the real world don't think much of him ... or Democrats in general ...

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=1910

Almost all the major gun control laws were passed under a Democrat controlled Senate/House or Presidency. They were in control of the White House from 1933 to 1953: Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman. (Source: World Book Encyclopedia)

Oh, btw, some winners of the Four Freedoms Award of the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute can be seen here: http://www.feri.org/awards/4freerecipients.cfm

Freedom from Want: The March of Dimes; Freedom from Fear: Louise Arbour (now a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, formerly prosecutor for the war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia); Freedom Medal: Edward M. Kennedy; Freedom from Want: George S. McGovern; Freedom of Worship: The Most Reverend Desmond Tutu; Freedom from Fear: Craig Kielburger (the Canadian boy who founded Free the Children, a grassroots campaign against child labour worldwide); Freedom Medal: Mary Robinson; Freedom Medal: President Jimmy Carter.

I wonder what any of them -- many of them rather outstanding Democrats in the US -- might think of this "Truman solution" ...

.

[MrBenchley]

6. What I find funniest

is that on pretty much any right wing sewer like Free Republic, or Stormfront.org....he'll already find his "dedicated grassroots Internet activists" who'll pimp for that and even loonier schemes.

And considering that Truman was the target of an assassination attempt in which two cops were wounded by bullets and another was gunned down, I dount he'd have done anything but spit on the sort of person who'd propose that gun stores ought to be able to sell machine guns to every nutcase that wanders in off the street.

[Wubbman]

7. What is not funny...

Mr Benchley, I believe you are ignorant of the laws regulating machine guns weapons. First of all, a "nutcase" that wanders off the street cannot just buy a machine gun. Under the current laws, the process of legally obtaining a machine gun is long and strenuous.

First of all, you must be able to cope with the price, as any machine gun that can be transferred will be very expensive (upwards of $20k for high quality ones). Second, you must live in a state that allows machine guns. Some do and some don't. The preferred way to transfer a machine gun is to submit two copies of BATF form 5320.4. You must include a 2"x2" photo of yourself as well as two sheets for your fingerprints. You also must get the signature of the chief law enforcement officer in your area on the back of the forms (this can be the country sheriff, chief of police, DA, etc.). And lastly, before sending the form in, you must include a $200 check for every weapon that you are transferring (as per the National Firearms Act of 1934). Once you submit the form, it takes an average of three months for the BATF to approve the paper work, assuming you were a qualified individual in the first place.

That however, is not what Frodo Baggins is proposing to change.

The law that we're talking about here prevents selling machine guns manufactured after 1986 to the public (after going through all the paper work mentioned above). To repeal this law would only bring the cost of machine guns down. It would do nothing to the amount of paper work (and time spent) that is required to legally own one.

[MrBenchley]

8. Yeah, cheaper machine guns in every store...

what a miserably foolish idea.

[Wubbman]

10. In every store?

They are NOT available in "every" store. I don't know the process for attaining Class 3 dealer status.

So basically, its foolish because it goes against your beliefs?

[MrBenchley]

11. No, basically its foolish

because it escalates a public menace...

[FeebMaster]

12. Yeah,

only rich people should be able to own machine guns or any gun, for that matter. Someday maybe we can get regular rifles, shotguns, and handguns into the NFA system. Then after that we'll ban civilian production of them. It will be great, only doctors, lawyers, and people who inherit millions will be able to afford guns. Government employees too, since there will be exceptions written if for them so they can buy new weapons at normal prices. Then we'll truly be free.

[MrBenchley]

14. jackney sneeb tell you that, feeb?

[FeebMaster]

16. I don't know

you're the one who agrees with him on the concealed carry permit issue. What was yours and Jackney's position on need again?

[MrBenchley]

17. I don't agree with jackney sneeb...

you're the one who was pimping for his childish quiz.

[FeebMaster]

18. What do you mean you don't agree with him?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x47293#48449


You: "No, as I've often said clearly, I believe an applicant should show an actual NEED to have a pistol permit."

Me: "And yet you still haven't mentioned what you think is an acceptable need."

You: "Ask Jackney Sneeb, feeb...."

I asked you what your position is and you told me to ask Jackney Sneeb. You're clearly agreeing with Jackney Sneeb's position on need with regard to carry permits. Why else would you tell me to ask Jackney Sneeb when it's your answer I'm interested in?

[MrBenchley]

21. I mean I don't agree with YOUR authority figure, feeb...

You dragged this humhole out of his richly deserved obscurity and told us his simple-minded childish "quiz" was worth everyone's attention...and now you seem to be running from him and his website as fast as your little legs will carry you.

[FeebMaster]

23. I haven't read his website.

I just posted a poll in a thread where a few had been posted. You're the one claiming to agree with him on concealed carry. You're right, his website is much less obscure now that a few people down in the gun dungeon have read it.

[iverglas]

25. gosh, if only

You're the one claiming to agree with him on concealed carry.

... you could quote anyone as claiming to agree with him on concealed carry.

Are you particularly confused today, or just trying to look that way?

.

[FeebMaster]

29. I pointed it out in post 18 in this thread.

Here it is again for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a...


MrB: "No, as I've often said clearly, I believe an applicant should show an actual NEED to have a pistol permit."

Me: "And yet you still haven't mentioned what you think is an acceptable need."

MrB: "Ask Jackney Sneeb, feeb...."

I think it's clear that MrBenchley agrees with Jackney Sneeb's position and would prefer that I read Jackney Sneeb's explanation to simply explaining things to me himself.

[iverglas]

36. you need to stop saying this

I think it's clear that MrBenchley agrees with Jackney Sneeb's position and would prefer that I read Jackney Sneeb's explanation to simply explaining things to me himself.

I think it's actually pretty clear that "Ask Jackney Sneeb, feeb" is more accurately rendered as "Get off the bus, Gus. Make a new plan, Stan." Loosely translated: take a hike. Mike.

Getting it yet? ... Or, ready to stop pretending you didn't get it, yet?

.

[FeebMaster]

39. If it was

MrBenchley's intention to tell me to "take a hike" then perhaps he shouldn't have done it in a way that said "Gee feeb, I agree with Jackney Sneeb. Why don't you go ask him his opinion if you're interested in knowing mine?"

[MrBenchley]

47. Gee, feeb....

So referring to Jackney Sneeb contemptuously implies endorsement of his simple-minded views....

but posting his idiotic quiz with the words "I like this political quiz..." DOESN'T convey endorsement in any way, shape or form by you.

Uh-HUH. I think we've stumbled on the reason your "evidence" isn't likely to convince Pert.

[FeebMaster]

50. I haven't offered any evidence

to Pert so I'm certainly not going to be convincing him any time soon.

"So referring to Jackney Sneeb contemptuously implies endorsement of his simple-minded views...."

Why would you refer to Jackney Sneeb contemptuously in order to answer a question that has nothing at all to do with Jackney Sneeb?

"but posting his idiotic quiz with the words "I like this political quiz..." DOESN'T convey endorsement in any way, shape or form by you."

As I've said, I posted the link to the quiz in a light hearted thread where a number of political quizzes had been mentioned. In the future, I will put a disclaimer on all my links to outside sites so no one gets confused.

[MrBenchley]

52. Good thing...

If this thread reflects what you think is "convincing evidence" you'd be better off bribing Pert....

"Why would you refer to Jackney Sneeb contemptuously"
Why would any sane person refer to that imbecile other than contemptuously? It's notable that you introduced the quiz but don't want any part of defending the viewpoint it represents.

"As I've said, I posted the link to the quiz in a light hearted thread"
And told us you liked the quiz better....until the first question about it got raised, at which point you began trying desperately to dissociate yourself from the author of that quiz you like so much.

[FeebMaster]

53. As I said, I haven't offered evidence

so I could hardly be said to believe that what I've posted reflects what I think is "convincing evidence."

""Why would you refer to Jackney Sneeb contemptuously"

Why would any sane person refer to that imbecile other than contemptuously? It's notable that you introduced the quiz but don't want any part of defending the viewpoint it represents."

Actually I didn't ask "Why would you refer to Jackney Sneeb contemptuously" I asked "Why would you refer to Jackney Sneeb contemptuously in order to answer a question that has nothing at all to do with Jackney Sneeb?"

"And told us you liked the quiz better....until the first question about it got raised, at which point you began trying desperately to dissociate yourself from the author of that quiz you like so much."

I also explained why I liked that quiz better. Trying to dissociate myself from the author? OK. I thought I was after a little honesty about what I've actually posted which has variously been described as links to manifestos and calls for revolution.

[MrBenchley]

56. Save your carfare...

if this is the level of what you would proffer as evidence...

"I asked "Why would you refer to Jackney Sneeb contemptuously in order to answer a question that has nothing at all to do with Jackney Sneeb?""
For the excellent reason that YOU produced him and his idiotic quiz out of thin air as a standard of political wisdom...and now, quite hilariously, you want to run away from him.

Alas, poor Sneeb. Deserted by those who once held him so dear...

"I know thee not, old man. Fall to thy prayers. "

[FeebMaster]

59. What carfare?

""I asked "Why would you refer to Jackney Sneeb contemptuously in order to answer a question that has nothing at all to do with Jackney Sneeb?""
For the excellent reason that YOU produced him and his idiotic quiz out of thin air as a standard of political wisdom...and now, quite hilariously, you want to run away from him. "

Where did I claim that the quiz was a "standard of political wisdom"?

[MrBenchley]

27. His website is where the quiz you were so delighted by was....

are you telling us that you looked at the quiz but didn't even bother to click on the link under the quiz?

[FeebMaster]

30. That's right.

I was only interested in the quiz and posting it in a thread where a few had already been posted.

Thanks for finally understanding.

[MrBenchley]

33. And it didn't occur to you in the least

to click on the link at the bottom and see what the point of the quiz was?

[FeebMaster]

35. You're right, it didn't.

I'm glad we've finally put an end to this.

[iverglas]

38. except

... that we still don't know how or why you knew exactly where to find that little quizzie.

I sure didn't.

.

[FeebMaster]

41. I explained in one of the

what is now probably hundred posts on the subject that I got it when someone linked to it and said "Hey, check out this political quiz."

Am I under arrest? Can I go now? Perhaps I should have asserted my right to remain silent or at least spoken to council first.

By all means, keep going on about Jackney Sneeb. It's certainly no less interesting than the usual stale gun control arguments.

[MrBenchley]

44. Thanks...I certainly will go on about Jackney Sneeb

"I got it when someone linked to it and said "Hey, check out this political quiz.""
And so you obeyed blindly without asking where it was from and whaty it was about? You never clicked on the link below the quiz to figure out where it was from?

And then you interrupted somebody else's thread to announce "I like this political quiz better" without knowing any of that? And the URL, "http://nogov4me.net/quiz.htm" wasn't any sort of tip-off?

That's the sort of judgement that certainly makes me think society would be a lot safer if dangerous weapons were kept out of some people's irresponsible hands.

[FeebMaster]

46. I didn't see that it was necessary.

"And so you obeyed blindly without asking where it was from and whaty it was about? You never clicked on the link below the quiz to figure out where it was from?"

I thought everyone understood that all of the political quizzes out there are full of bias. Next time I link one, I'll put up a disclaimer.

"And then you interrupted somebody else's thread to announce "I like this political quiz better" without knowing any of that? And the URL, "http://nogov4me.net/quiz.htm " wasn't any sort of tip-off?"

As I've said, I got a kick out of the categories for the various scores at the end of the quiz. Are you harassing the other guy who posted the link to the libertarian quiz too? You must be busy.

"That's the sort of judgement that certainly makes me think society would be a lot safer if dangerous weapons were kept out of some people's irresponsible hands."

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I'm not sure the websites people link should be a criteria for their eligibility to own weapons. You might be in a bit of hot water over that one if it were, huh?

[MrBenchley]

49. Why in the world not?

"I thought everyone understood that all of the political quizzes out there are full of bias. "
Except in the case of Herr Sneeb's test, which you had no inkling whatsoever led to anything as idiotic and feeble-minded as his views. You didn't even bother to click on the link under the test you liked so much to see if there was more of the same...

"Personally, I'm not sure the websites people link should be a criteria for their eligibility to own weapons."
I think being able to tell the difference between real politics and Jackney Sneeb's ravings is a pretty good barometer of someone's grip on reality. You obviously do too, or you wouldn't be trying to fob him off so desperately.

"You might be in a bit of hot water over that one if it were, huh?"
Why is that feeb? Do you think that when I call the KKK racist scumbags it's a good thing? Do you think when I call Newsmax or MensNewsDaily a right wing cesspool, it is praise?

[FeebMaster]

51. Popcorn.

"Except in the case of Herr Sneeb's test, which you had no inkling whatsoever led to anything as idiotic and feeble-minded as his views. You didn't even bother to click on the link under the test you liked so much to see if there was more of the same..."

I didn't realize that enjoying a political quiz required me to read everything on the website that posted it. I also didn't realize that posting a link to it required me to agree with everything on that website and all the websites it linked to. In the future I'll post a disclaimer with all of my outside links to indicate that posting of the links does not necessarily imply my support or agreement to the content of the links. I heartily suggest that everyone start doing the same.

"I think being able to tell the difference between real politics and Jackney Sneeb's ravings is a pretty good barometer of someone's grip on reality. You obviously do too, or you wouldn't be trying to fob him off so desperately."

Surely making Jackney Sneeb's website part of a national test to judge someone's grip on reality would pull him out of the obscurity he now resides in.

I'm not trying to fob anything off. As I've said, I haven't read Jackney Sneeb's website. I don't plan on reading it any time soon either.

[MrBenchley]

54. No soap. Radio.

"I didn't realize that enjoying a political quiz required me to read everything on the website that posted it."
You're not claiming that you didn't read everything though, are you? You're claiming you never even glanced at it, even though you liked the test so much. You said to yourself, "Jinkies, this was loads of fun...but I don't want to see if there's any more fun to be had on the link right under this test that I've enjoyed. In fact, I'll recommend it to others without worrying a bit about what might be behind this test I've enjoyed so much.."

I didn't have to read everything...a glance at the first page told me all I needed to know about this dimwit and his creed. I doubt anybody else would need more than 30 seconds to see what a ridiculous and childish pile of crap it was.

"Surely making Jackney Sneeb's website part of a national test"
No, I'll be happy to substitute any other disjointed irrational raving....

"I'm not trying to fob anything off."
Yeah, and you didn't look at the website, either...mighty convincing, feeb....

[FeebMaster]

57. Twister. Ronsonol.

"You're not claiming that you didn't read everything though, are you? You're claiming you never even glanced at it, even though you liked the test so much. You said to yourself, "Jinkies, this was loads of fun...but I don't want to see if there's any more fun to be had on the link right under this test that I've enjoyed. In fact, I'll recommend it to others without worrying a bit about what might be behind this test I've enjoyed so much..""

Yes that's right. I only read the political quiz. I got a kick out of it and posted a link in a thread where a few political quizzes had been linked. I didn't read anything of the website other than the quiz. I didn't realize that the other information contained in the website would rend the very fabric of space and time, if I had I would have thought twice about posting such a dreadful link.

"I didn't have to read everything...a glance at the first page told me all I needed to know about this dimwit and his creed. I doubt anybody else would need more than 30 seconds to see what a ridiculous and childish pile of crap it was."

That's fantastic.

"Yeah, and you didn't look at the website, either...mighty convincing, feeb...."

Obviously my explanation is unconvincing since you've brought it up in several threads and we've now made at least 40 posts on the subject.

[MrBenchley]

62. Way-y-y-y-y convincing, feeb....NOT.

"I didn't realize that the other information contained in the website would rend the very fabric of space and time"
No, it just makes the viewpoint the quiz represents mighty silly.

[FeebMaster]

63. OK

"No, it just makes the viewpoint the quiz represents mighty silly."

Fine. Maybe we can end this now.

[MrBenchley]

42. You're going to be a big help

come the Revolution...people who don't ask questions before they pull a trigger usually are, for a time.

I find it hilarious that after all that wailing about "revolution," "freedom" and "rights"you've been doing, feeb, you were too passive or too timid to find out the provenance of the quiz you presented.

[FeebMaster]

43. What wailing have I been doing

about "revolution"?

"I find it hilarious that after all that wailing about "revolution," "freedom" and "rights"you've been doing, feeb, you were too passive or too timid to find out the provenance of the quiz you presented."


"You're going to be a big help come the Revolution...people who don't ask questions before they pull a trigger usually are, for a time."

I don't think so. First of all, there's no revolution coming. Second of all, I'm certainly not going to be pulling the trigger on anything.

[MrBenchley]

45. "there's no revolution coming"

Ah, which feebmaster is which?

"FeebMaster
26. Maybe it will be the people who don't vote
that start the revolution."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=48558&mesg_id=48696&page=

[FeebMaster]

48. I didn't realize that was wailing.

I thought it was a tongue-in-cheek response to iverglas' post:

"Is how anybody could be fool enough to think, or why anybody would be deceitful enough to say s/he thinks, that those particular people would be using their firearms to oust the government *they* voted in ..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=48558&mesg_id=48693&page=

[iverglas]

24. can anyone actually think like this?

I asked you what your position is and you told me to ask Jackney Sneeb. You're clearly agreeing with Jackney Sneeb's position on need with regard to carry permits. Why else would you tell me to ask Jackney Sneeb when it's your answer I'm interested in?

I find it difficult, nay, nigh impossible, to believe that anyone does.

.

[MrBenchley]

26. I find it hilarious

that feeb is desperately trying to fob the august Mr. Sneeb off on others, after having dredged the goofball from well-deserved obscurity and introducing him as an authority on all things political....

The name is worthy of the great W.C. Fields...once can almost hear him savoring each syllable.

[iverglas]

31. I believe that "Jackney Sneeb"

... is what Thermalman and his Ultronian sidekick say in the BBC's My Hero when they do the elbow-rub greeting ...

But it sounds better when W.C. does it.

.

[MrBenchley]

37. Spa Fon!

I am astonished by the breadth of your learning and intelligence...but then I'll bet you wouldn't stare at a "quiz" and never click through to se what the point of the "quiz" was, either.

[FeebMaster]

34. Just think MrB

all this time you're spending talking about Jackney Sneeb and his website could surely be better spent looking for new links to KKK websites and posting them here for all of us to enjoy.

[MrBenchley]

40. No need...

The RKBA crowd does a good enough job dredging turds out of every right wing cesspool they can find.

[FeebMaster]

32. Perhaps you could explain things to me, then.

If someone asks me a question, I certainly don't tell them to ask someone else I don't even agree with for an answer.

[Wubbman]

13. Really?

If it is truly a public menace, then I challenge you to find even one headline for your gun news thread that reports a crime with a machine gun.

[MrBenchley]

15. Really...

How pweshus....

[Wubbman]

19. I rest my case

How come when you are confronted with facts contrary to your own opinion you always pull out the bullshit card? Its fine to admit you are wrong once in awhile, and it shows strength.

[MrBenchley]

20. What facts?

You ain't got nothing but bullshit to respond to.

And not even the loonies at such outposts as GOA are pushing to put machine guns on the market.

[Wubbman]

22. Facts?

"You ain't got nothing but bullshit to respond to." Uh, I guess you are refering to your own responses? This is not about what the GAO wants, so why bring them into it. Machine guns are already on the market, this discussion is only about making them cheaper to qualified individuals. In all your years of hating guns and the people that use them, have you ever heard of one story where a legal machine gun was used by its legal owner to commit a crime? Please use a real answer this time. "Pweshus...?"

[MrBenchley]

28. Yeah, facts...you know, those things the RKBA crowd ain't got....

"this discussion is only about making them cheaper to qualified individuals"
Like who? The Beltway Sniper? Guess we should be glad the law is still in effect, before the Bullseye Gun Shop was able to add these to their "inventory."

[Wubbman]

55. Hmmm, you seem to be devoid of facts yourself

Is that who you group all gun owners with, the Beltway Sniper? I know that if would actually listen to the arguments of all parties involved, you would see otherwise, but then I doubt you want to see anything that contradicts your version of the truth. Why so close minded? Did you have a bad experience that involved a gun?

Anyone who can pass the background check put in place by the Brady Bill, even you, is a qualified individual.

[MrBenchley]

58. I don't see much difference

"I know that if would actually listen to the arguments of all parties involved, you would see otherwise"
I doubt it., if they're all is addle-pated as the argument to loosen regulations on machineguns...but at least that's a change from "if only you saw a real gun" or "if only you shot off a few rounds"

"Anyone who can pass the background check put in place by the Brady Bill, even you, is a qualified individual"
Yet I seem able to muddle through from day to day without a machine gun...or even a teeny tiny pistol. Nor am I scared shitless by my fellow citizens, nor am I daydreaming about shooting them in some half-ass revolution.

By the way, was that one of the arguments I was supposed to listen to that would make me see otherwise? It didn't work. Better take it back where you got it.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

66. Well, it certainly wasn't a bit convinicng...

but it was represented of the crap we hear day in and day out from the RKBA crowd.

"I'm amazed that you aren't scared shitless of your fellow citizens."
Why? Just because a few neurotics feel the need to skulk though the streets and churches nervously clutching popguns doesn't mean that mine isn't a particularly uncommon outlook. That's why voters support gun control in overwhelming numbers and every group of decent people in America ended up on the NRA's imbecilic "enemies list."

"In fact, I believe you're lying."
Yeah, but you're pimping for machine guns on the street. I don't give a steaming crap what YOU believe.

[Wubbman]

67. Hmmm, maybe if you had read the whole post...

Maybe you should go back and read my reasoning on why you should be scared of your fellow citizens. It had nothing at all to do with concealed carry.

Please define decent people. Are the rich decent? Are politicians decent? Are movie stars decent?

So, me listing the steps it takes to legally acquire a machine gun means that I'm advocating putting them on the street?

If you don't care what I believe, why do you keep responding? Do you think that your overly emotional and over used tactic of labeling your enemies as "imbeciles, pond scum, and pimps" will win me, or, more importantly, undecided readers of this forum over to your side?

[MrBenchley]

69. I read the whole post

"Please define decent people."
Why not just look on the NRA's enemies list? You'll find pediatricians, working people, civil rights workers, the League of Women Voters, etc., etc., etc.

"Maybe you should go back and read my reasoning on why you should be scared of your fellow citizens."
Why? Did you think it aged into something WORTH hearing?

"undecided readers of this forum"
You mean you think the average person is pissing and moaning about why there aren't more machine guns being sold? That IS hilarious.

[iverglas]

71. heh

Maybe you should go back and read my reasoning on why you should be scared of your fellow citizens.
Why? Did you think it aged into something WORTH hearing?

If it's yellow, let it mellow.
If it's brown, flush it down.

You'll forgive me for flaunting the great breadth and depth of my knowledge of epic poetry. ;)

.

[MrBenchley]

72. I think of all the silliness I've read from the RKBA crowd...

the notion that the arguments would get more convincing as they got older is right up there.....especially when the arguments are as lame as "even you could get a gun..."

[Wubbman]

73. Keep reading, you missed it again

"Why? Did you think it aged into something WORTH hearing?"

Most people read (not listen) on this forum. The part I was referring to was the part about your daily thread of gun crime. I find it hard to believe that the stories you find about the misuse of guns don't strike fear of your fellow citizens into you.

"undecided readers of this forum"

Is this thread the only thing to read in the this forum? There are other topics that people read. Why are you angry over the idea of more machine gun sales? I'd still like you to find an article about a legal machine gun being used in a crime by its legal owner.

"Why not just look on the NRA's enemies list? You'll find pediatricians, working people, civil rights workers, the League of Women Voters, etc., etc., etc."

So, if a pediatrician is pro-RKBA, are they still decent in your book?

[MrBenchley]

75. Nah, I'll just write it off to the usual RKBA crap

"Is this thread the only thing to read in the this forum?"
No, you can find a thread about how much fun some people would have gunning down someone over Froot Loops and lying to the police afterwards. Or there's also the "revolution" thread, where gun nuts dream of shooting their fellow citizens...

There's a bunch of threads started by a right wing disruptor that have got locked. There's a sensible question from a friend from the UK with some quite nonsensiclal answers.

And there's a thread with the actual news stories from real newspapers showing what a pantload this RKBA rubbish is, and what the true cost of letting the corrupt gun industry set public policy is.

[Wubbman]

76. Well...

The content of the other threads doesn't matter in this discussion. The point of that statement is that this isn't the only thread to read, so why did you read into it that much? Why do you have an emotional outburst every time someone contradicts you? The above is tantamount to a temper tantrum. It seems to me you are enraged at the fact that someone would have an opinion differing from yours.

[MrBenchley]

77. Sounds like you bought another faulty argument, wubb....

I have to say that no matter how carefully I read

"Wubbman (12 posts)
73. Keep reading, you missed it again
Is this thread the only thing to read in the this forum? There are other topics that people read."

and then

Wubbman (12 posts)
76. Well...
The content of the other threads doesn't matter in this discussion. "

I don't get anything out of it but unintentional hilarity. Sure goes a long way to convincing me the RKBA issue is nothing BUT horseshit.

"It seems to me you are enraged"
But considering deregulating machine gun sales also seems like a swell idea to YOU, why should I give a rats' ass how things seem to you?

[Wubbman]

78. What?

This thread was never about the RKBA argument. It was only about the 1986 Gun Control Bill. Its not about deregulating machine gun sales. It is about lowering the cost by allowing new guns into the class 3 market. Other than the cost, the process of obtaining a machine gun would be exactly the same.

[MrBenchley]

79. Who DO you think you're kidding?

"It was only about the 1986 Gun Control Bill"
And WHAT was the proposal about that Act?

"It is about lowering the cost"
And what possible benefit is that to anyone but gun retailers? It sure isn't anything but a menace to the general public.

[Wubbman]

80. Proof?

Find proof that it will be a menace to the public. How about an article about a legally owned machine gun being used by its legal owner in a crime.

[MrBenchley]

81. Proof?

You really want to pretend you can't see that machine guns are a public message? Say, what was that criminal George Kelly's nickname?

[Wubbman]

82. George "Machine Gun" Kelly

His nickname was George "Machine Gun" Kelly. And that was before the NFA of 1934. Kelly was captured in 1933 and died in prison in 1951. Find that article yet?

[FeebMaster]

83. That's an effective way to argue

for relaxing the machine gun laws. Well this criminal guy whose nickname was "machine gun" had them before they started regulating them.

[MrBenchley]

85. I thought so...

Of course you thought linking to a site and then whining when we pointed out what it said was an effective way to argue.

[FeebMaster]

86. Argue?

I didn't realize I was making an argument when I posted a link to a political quiz in a thread about political quizzes.

[MrBenchley]

87. Feeb...

I'd hate to have to guess what the hell you think you're trying to do with some of your posts...

[FeebMaster]

88. I'm not trying to do much.

I understand that I'm not going to convince people to change their views on gun ownership or any other issue, certainly not on a message board. I post just to pass the time, really. It's basically mental masturbation.

[MrBenchley]

91. Well, I can't think of many who do less

although you did set some sort of low mark for people to aim at with "I love this quiz but I have NO IDEA what it could represent".

[FeebMaster]

93. I guess I'm flattered

that you think there are others out there who do less for gun rights than me.

Actually, I believe I said, "I like this quiz better," or something to that effect. I knew, of course, the link police would probably have an aneurysm over the link, but it is somewhat entertaining that we're still talking about it a week later in yet another thread. Of course, I'm sure some folks will still be bringing it up six months from now. By them, I'm sure we'll have discussed it in 247 threads and it will no doubt be as fabulously entertaining for all involved then as it is today.

[MrBenchley]

95. Like I said...

"it is somewhat entertaining that we're still talking about it a week later"
I'm laughing my ass off....

"it will no doubt be as fabulously entertaining for all involved then as it is today"
At least on this end of it....

[FeebMaster]

99. I'm glad we're in agreement.

I look forward to long years of talking about the political quiz. When the 2024 presidential election rolls along we can look back fondly and you can say "Remember back in ought-four when you posted that political quiz and by doing so gave your silent agreement to everything on the website the quiz was posted on not to mention everything that site linked to?" to which I will reply, "Indeed I do. Those were the days. Those were the days. Yup. Really, though, how could I forget? You've mentioned it everyday for the last 20 years."

[MrBenchley]

84. No shit, sherlock....

"that was before the NFA of 1934"

[Wubbman]

89. Really

If you knew Kelly's crime spree was 70 years ago, then why did you bring it up? Did you find that article yet?

[iverglas]

90. I'm just not having any trouble following this

Kelly's machine gun antics occurred before that legislation. They were committed with a legally owned machine gun (guns?).

(I assume. If it wasn't legally owned by Kelly, obviously it had been legally owned by somebody, and obviously it was a lot easier to obtain if somebody owned it legally than if legal ownership was not possible.)

Your challenge was:

Find proof that it will be a menace to the public. How about an article about a legally owned machine gun being used by its legal owner in a crime.

Well there ya go, eh?

So: does this fact support an argument for more widespread legal machine gun ownership?

.

[Wubbman]

98. Wrong direction

I think you are sidestepping the argument. First of all, his crimes occured before the NFA of 1934. You could buy a machine gun at a hardware store in 1933 (no paperwork, no background check). The argument is about getting rid of the 1986 Law, not about criminals stealing machine guns from legal owners (if Kelly did that, I don't know either, iverglas). Kelly did not have to go through the BATFE to obtain his weapons. Perhaps I should have been more specific. I wanted to see an article from this day and age (or at least after the 1986 law), where the offender was a legal machine gun owner (who had gone through the BATFE to obtain weapons) and who used their legally owned machine gun in a crime.

[MrBenchley]

96. Too TOO funny...

Now why do you suppose he got that nickname? Do you think it was because he talked in a rapid fire fashion?

[Wubbman]

100. Yeah, it is funny

Yep it is funny. Too bad its not because he talked in a rapid fire fashion. It is even more funny that you think it has meaning, considering it happened over 52 years before the law we are discussing. Where are the (post 1986) news articles depicting the carnage of legal civilian machine gun ownership?

[MrBenchley]

101. Too bad its not because he talked in a rapid fire fashion

I rest my case.

[Wubbman]

103. Yeah, you should stop

So, because I argued against you, I'm pro-crime?

[iverglas]

60. yikes, he gotcha, Benchley

Why so close minded? Did you have a bad experience that involved a gun?

Bit by a machine gun as a child, never able to think straight again.

It seems to have happened to a hellishly awful lot of people, doesn't it?

.

[TX-RAT]

61. The Horrors

[MrBenchley]

65. And I hoped never to think about that day on Omaha Beach again....

You really have to wonder who claims to be unable to think of what could possibly go wrong with de-regulated machine guns....

[FeebMaster]

68. I hate to break it to you,

but none of the machine guns on Omaha Beach were in private hands. They were all government owned.

[MrBenchley]

70. No shit, sherlock....

[Wubbman]

74. Ha ha ha-nt

[FatSlob]

9. PIMP!

Another sex reference.

[demsrule4life]

92. If you never get any

it is all you think about.

[MrBenchley]

94. Which is why some people have to make do with substitutes...

"Fetishism falls under the general category of paraphilias, "abnormal or unnatural attraction." Fetishism is a fixation on an inanimate object or body part that is not primarily sexual in nature, and the compulsive need for its use in order to obtain sexual gratification. Inanimate object fetishes can be categorized into two types: form fetishes and media fetishes. In a form fetish, it is the object and its shape that are important....Inanimate object fetishists often collect the object of their favor, and may go to great lengths, including theft...Fetishists may use any object for sexual gratification....For some, merely a picture of the fetish object may suffice in arousing the fetishists though most prefer or require the actual object."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/htdocs/prod/PTOInfo/pto_term_fetishism.asp

I suggest neither one of you go to Brooklyn...you'll find you can get called "a fucking nutless pimp" for reasons that have nothing to do with sex.

[demsrule4life]

97. I suggest neither one of you go to Brooklyn

You know this how? :)

[MrBenchley]

102. Among other things...

Your little pocket pals are illegal there...the last thing people need in Brooklyn is paranoiacs and faux tough guys wandering the streets with pistols in their pockets and a bunch of nonsense in their heads.

There's too many assholes with guns there already.

[demsrule4life]

104. "There's too many assholes with guns there already."

why is that? aren't guns illegal there?