Watching the Democrats - it's Fun and Macabre!

[Adak]

Originally Posted by glatt

Your gunman was a law abiding citizen up until the moment he wasn't. If he didn't have access to that gun, this wouldn't have happened. If you put even more guns into even more hands, then this sort of thing is going to happen even more often. You have good in you. You also have evil in you. Sometimes you give in to the evil. If you happen to have a gun when you give in to the evil, then the damage is worse. If your gun is a semi automatic that holds 30 rounds, then the damage is much worse.

You have to draw the line somewhere. The line is currently drawn in the wrong place. It needs to move in the direction of fewer rounds, and a slower firing rate.

You have a valid point about large magazines - no one but the military/police has a need for more than a 10 bullet capacity.

I'm very much in favor of banning larger capacity magazines, for civilians - which is already the law in California, btw.

But evil people WILL find ways to kill us, without using a gun at all.

Witness 9/11 - there WAS NO GUN at all.

Think for a moment if a GOOD guy or gal had been on those planes, and carrying concealed?

Box cutters vs 9 mm?

I'll take those odds, any day.

"Armed People, not Sheeple" - don't think the wolves don't know the difference.

[Ibby]

I was about to be all shocked and pleased that even YOU admit that a magazine size limit is necessary...
right up until you proposed that anyone but an air marshall should have a gun on a plane.





edit: what is the deal with attached gifs not animating?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

You still have not define socialism. While you are free to do so, giving your opinion is not a definition. So I ask you to please define the word socialism.

Sent from an undisclosed location.

Unlike liberals, I shy away from redefining words, to suit my POV atm.

Socialism has already been well defined:

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

A socialist economic system would consist of a system of production and distribution organized to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit[5] driven by the accumulation of capital. Accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time in place of financial calculation.[6][7] Distribution would be based on the principle to each according to his contribution.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership. Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic political system.

All socialism definitions have this in common - your freedoms become less - sometimes MUCH less. The control by the state becomes more - sometimes MUCH more.

When you equate Warren Buffet with his secretary, you're equating Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein, to his receptionist.

I submit to you that their accomplishments and benefit to us, is not the same.

As for the tax law - liberals and politicians under the undue influence of lobbyists, wrote it. Conservative politicians have almost always been in the minority, simply because they don't pander to the groups with the $$$, (unions (AFL-CIO), large corporations (GE), large political blocks (Israel), who will ensure their re-election.

As Representative Charlie Wilson once said:

"I'm Israel's guy on the Hill. I'm elected because I get support from a bunch of Jews in Upstate New York."

Which would be JUST FINE, except Charlie was a Rep. from Texas, which had "2 Jews in my district."

So Charlie wasn't representing his district 99% of the time. $$$Money$$$ was the reason why.

And I believe we should stop that pollution from $$$ into our politics, with a great deal of political reform.

BTW, nothing against the Jews. Just don't like the way $$$ can control politicians. What they've done is the smart play given our corrupt system of politics, and every other special interest group is doing EXACTLY the same thing. The Jews didn't make our problem, at all. We did.

[Adak]

@Ibby, I don't suffer from your fear about guns in the hands of our citizens. All CCW's require a special permit, training, and screening.

You have to accept that you can't get guns out of the hands of criminals - and if you did, they'd just use the next available weapon.

So, given that truth, do you want to be afraid or be prepared? Sheeple, or People?

There is risk, either way.

[Ibby]

fuck that "sheeple" bullshit, I don't want guns on airplanes, i don't want them in schools, i don't want them on public transport, I don't want them at sporting events, I don't want them in bars, I don't want them in civic institutions, unless they're being held by trained officials with complex systems of oversight and accountability.

And the notion that "all CCW's require a special permit training and screening" is flat out FALSE in many parts of the country, including here in Vermont where ABSOLUTELY anybody who can legally own a firearm, and passes the five-minute background check, with no waiting period, can conceal-carry.

If they didn't close at 7:00 (and I wasn't a pint of guinness and a shot of local Smuggler's Notch vodka (HIGHLY recommend it!) into the evening) i could drive myself to the local gun shop and walk out conceal-carrying it before Rachel Maddow comes on at 9:00. That might not be a huge problem here in Vermont, but it'd be a hell of a problem on a damn airplane.

[Ibby]

it says a lot that all the groups most susceptible to violence - people of color, city-dwellers, queers, and women - are almost always the loudest voices calling for tighter gun control, and those least likely to encounter violence are the loudest at saying they need to defend themselves from it.

More guns, more places, might be the solution to your paranoid self-defense fantasies, but it is NOT the solution to the hundreds and hundreds of gun deaths in this country every month.

[classicman]

..

[classicman]

...

[Ibby]

*snort*

holy false equivalency, batman!

[Adak]

We've focused on guns for illegal uses, but what about for their legal use?

Let's give the city folk a try at this one:

The gov't has employees to (usually) kill predators that keep killing/maiming livestock. [A species that is rare or protected will be trapped if possible.]

So here's the question:

How many coyotes did the gov't hunters kill last year?

(If you know the answer, give the liberals time to guess first. They are slow with factual, real life matters like this, so be patient.)

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Ibby

*snort*

holy false equivalency, batman!

Yes, those plastic stocks really add a TREMENDOUS ferocity to the rifle, don't they? People just fall down dead when they see plastic, don't ya know?

Same bullet
Same barrel
Same firing mechanism
Same ejector mechanism
Same breech
Sights can be the same, or different, depending on the type of game it's intended for.

The longer stock on the long rifle, allows a better "float" system to be used, if ultra accuracy is desired.

The carbine (shorter stocked rifle), has a banana clip on it. I haven't seen a high capacity clip for the longer rifle, but they may be out there.

The longer barreled rifle will give the bullet more speed than the shorter barreled versions, increasing it's range and energy.

[IamSam]

Originally Posted by Adak

We've focused on guns for illegal uses, but what about for their legal use?

Let's give the city folk a try at this one:

The gov't has employees to (usually) kill predators that keep killing/maiming livestock. [A species that is rare or protected will be trapped if possible.]

So here's the question:

How many coyotes did the gov't hunters kill last year?

(If you know the answer, give the liberals time to guess first. They are slow with factual, real life matters like this, so be patient.)

How many coyotes must a fool gun down
Before you call him a fool ?
How many ears must one man have
Before he can hear coyote song?
How many deaths till he knows
That too many coyotes have died?
The answer my friend is blowing in the western wind
The answer is blowing in the Colorado wind.



Idiot!










Sent via howls from a thousand outraged coyotes, armed with Bushmasters

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

The longer barreled rifle will give the bullet more speed than the shorter barreled versions, increasing it's range and energy.

So that bullet will go miles and kill someone. Nobody needs such assault weapons for defense, protection, or hunting.

Problem created by high power rifles was even discussed years ago. An Allentown pregnant woman shot by a lawyer using an illegal high powered rifle. Because the lawyer needed to appease his penis - not his brain. The lawyer was convicted of multiple crimes. And still refused to apologize to the pregnant woman who was only standing in her driveway. He was typical of the ignorant who who even need grenades and howitzers.

Why did the lawyer shoot her? He was firing a rifle with a high velocity bullet - that went almost a mile. But he needed big guns for the same reason other wackos need big guns. A bullet that goes far beyond the shooters vision. A bullet intended only to kill other humans. We need those longer guns because we all need weapons (and hollow point bullets) to hunt big game: other humans.

What do patriots - moderates - need? A perfect example that does not inspire 'big dic' thoughts in extremists. When guns were sold for protection and hunting, that was more than sufficient. Nobody needed hollow point bullets that only the naive, dumb, and dangerous have advocated (even here). Yes, only a liar would advocate hollow point bullets for hunting and target practice.

Today, only extremists really need weapons to hunt other people. A bullet must never go farther than what the shooter can see. Therefore a shorter barrel is what any educated person would need. Only the dumbest among us need guns that shoot farther. Who are so extreme as to even shoot a pregnant lady in her driveway. And even refuse to apologize AFTER being convicted. Only liars would insist that is necessary for personal defense or deer hunting.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Adak

Unlike liberals, I shy away from redefining words, to suit my POV atm.

Socialism has already been well defined:



All socialism definitions have this in common - your freedoms become less - sometimes MUCH less. The control by the state becomes more - sometimes MUCH more.

Congratulations, you have cut-and-pasted from Wikipedia. If you go on and read the entire entry, you will see that not all things called socialism require social ownership of the means of production.

Do "my" freedoms become less? Well the freedoms of the ultra-rich to screw everyone else for their private benefit do indeed become less. That is why I like it.

but .. as you wish. Let's use "socialism" to mean systems where the means of production are under collective ownership/control, as you say.

It immediately follows that there is no way Obama can be called a socialist. A tax-and-spend welfare supporter, maybe, but he has shown no sign of seizing the means of production.

Secondly, we now need a new word to describe the spectrum of what I had previously called socialism. Then we can sensibly debate which things ought to be the concern of government and which not. I invite you to suggest a new term.

Originally Posted by Adak

Yes, those plastic stocks really add a TREMENDOUS ferocity to the rifle, don't they? People just fall down dead when they see plastic, don't ya know?

Same bullet
Same barrel
Same firing mechanism
Same ejector mechanism
Same breech
Sights can be the same, or different, depending on the type of game it's intended for.

The longer stock on the long rifle, allows a better "float" system to be used, if ultra accuracy is desired.

The carbine (shorter stocked rifle), has a banana clip on it. I haven't seen a high capacity clip for the longer rifle, but they may be out there.

The longer barreled rifle will give the bullet more speed than the shorter barreled versions, increasing it's range and energy.

Way to try to hide the key point in weasel words. Even you have agreed that no law abiding gun user needs a 20 or 30 round magazine. Why did you bother?

[classicman]

"Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine? "
Googled it out of curiosity ... and found this