mnealtx 0 #1 February 27, 2009 Ok, freeheelbillie... NOW you can have your conniption. Clicky QuoteBy JASON RYAN WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009 The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today. Wednesday Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Obama administration will seek to reinstitute the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004 during the Bush administration. As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters. Stupid idea, of course - it will have no impact on criminal activities. I'm wondering what the OTHER "just a few gun-related changes" will be?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #2 February 27, 2009 I hear the Shopping Mall Shooters' Union is royally pissed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #3 February 27, 2009 Quote I hear the Shopping Mall Shooters' Union is royally pissed. Glad you think that the murder of innocents is somehow amusing. I don't.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #4 February 27, 2009 Quote Quote I hear the Shopping Mall Shooters' Union is royally pissed. Glad you think that the murder of innocents is somehow amusing. I don't. But you have no objection to arming the shooters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #5 February 27, 2009 Quote Quote Quote I hear the Shopping Mall Shooters' Union is royally pissed. Glad you think that the murder of innocents is somehow amusing. I don't. But you have no objection to arming the shooters. I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment. Do you have a problem with that?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #6 February 27, 2009 What is an assault weapon? Its a term coined by anti-gun persons to describe literally any weapon. My "black gun" doesn't have a bayonet lug, which is one of the defining factors, but I'm willing to bet that it will still fall under the often wrong definition of an "assault weapon." So give me a hard definition of an "assault weapon." The last ban basically started "I don't know but I know one when I see one" which was pointless. Basically if it is anything like the last AWB, crime rates will not drop and nothing good will come of it. Well, literally the only industry that is booming right now is the gun industry. We have Uncle O to thank for that, since he wants to limit our rights, people have rushed to purchase what they now have the right to buy.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #7 February 27, 2009 "...as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum," [said Holder]. So the reason for restricting our second amendment rights is so we can help Mexico? That is past asinine. The gun grab is just starting. With a democrat controlled legislature there will be no shortage of bills introduced that have a good shot at passing.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,405 #8 February 27, 2009 QuoteI have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment. Do you have a problem with that? In the US, no. In Canada, yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #9 February 27, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote I hear the Shopping Mall Shooters' Union is royally pissed. Glad you think that the murder of innocents is somehow amusing. I don't. But you have no objection to arming the shooters. I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment. Do you have a problem with that? So you'd have no problem with gun purchasers having to provide concrete evidence that they are not under psychiatric treatment? How about someone who just last week got out of 15 years in prison for armed robbery, is not currently wanted. OK for him to buy an assault weapon?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #10 February 27, 2009 QuoteHow about someone who just last week got out of 15 years in prison for armed robbery, is not currently wanted. OK for him to buy an assault weapon? You have no concept of the current laws in place to prevent your "scenario" from happening. Now, give me a hard definition of an "assault weapon." Now explain why a law abiding citizen should not be able to purchase what you described (assuming you describe what is currently purchasable by a law abiding citizen with not BATF requirements).--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 February 27, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote I hear the Shopping Mall Shooters' Union is royally pissed. Glad you think that the murder of innocents is somehow amusing. I don't. But you have no objection to arming the shooters. I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment. Do you have a problem with that? So you'd have no problem with gun purchasers having to provide concrete evidence that they are not under psychiatric treatment? Form 4473, question 12f. Quote How about someone who just last week got out of 15 years in prison for armed robbery, is not currently wanted. OK for him to buy an assault weapon? Form 4473, question 12c. Are you done trolling yet?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #12 February 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteHow about someone who just last week got out of 15 years in prison for armed robbery, is not currently wanted. OK for him to buy an assault weapon? You have no concept of the current laws in place to prevent your "scenario" from happening. Now, give me a hard definition of an "assault weapon." Now explain why a law abiding citizen should not be able to purchase what you described (assuming you describe what is currently purchasable by a law abiding citizen with not BATF requirements). Oh, come on, Dave. You KNOW the argument will be that THESE laws will make them safe. Those other laws on the books... those aren't good. We need NEW ones to protect us from those evil gun types that just want to kill us. As far as what is an "assault weapon" is.... you know that if you just had one of those wooden type boom sticks then you would be fine. But yours is scary looking. Scary is bad. It has nothing to do with caliber or capacity.... Cuz you can't kill someone with a single shot bolt rifle, can you? That's not what snipers like bestest... they like the scary ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #13 February 27, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote I hear the Shopping Mall Shooters' Union is royally pissed. Glad you think that the murder of innocents is somehow amusing. I don't. But you have no objection to arming the shooters. I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment. Do you have a problem with that? So you'd have no problem with gun purchasers having to provide concrete evidence that they are not under psychiatric treatment? Form 4473, question 12f. Quote How about someone who just last week got out of 15 years in prison for armed robbery, is not currently wanted. OK for him to buy an assault weapon? Form 4473, question 12c. Are you done trolling yet? So self certification is OK with you? I certify I am not a nutcase, I'd like that AK47 please. Your answers contradict your earlier statement.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #14 February 27, 2009 Exactly. I know its a crappy cellphone picture, but can you see the charging handle on my AR? --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #15 February 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteHow about someone who just last week got out of 15 years in prison for armed robbery, is not currently wanted. OK for him to buy an assault weapon? You have no concept of the current laws in place to prevent your "scenario" from happening. ). I'm not discussing current laws, I'm discussing mnealtx's statement about what HE is OK with. mnealtx wrote: "I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment"If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #16 February 27, 2009 QuoteI'm not discussing current laws, I'm discussing mnealtx's statement about what HE is OK with Swing and a miss. You're trying to troll, plain and simple. You're doing that by ignoring what Mike has said. You have still ignored what I asked of you. So you really don't know what you're talking about, you're just a troll.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 February 27, 2009 QuoteSo self certification is OK with you? Self-certification is the law - why do you have a problem with it? After all, the Brady Bunch *SWORE* that their check would prevent hundreds of thousands of illegal sales EVERY YEAR!!! Of course, there's been an absolutely MINISCULE number of arrests out of those hundreds of thousands of denials that they SWORE would happen - I guess actually catching CRIMINALS trying to buy GUNS in an ILLEGAL manner wasn't all THAT important to the Brady folks after all, now was it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,405 #18 February 27, 2009 QuoteYou have still ignored what I asked of you. So you really don't know what you're talking about, you're just a troll. Now that is the logical reasoning you'd like to see from a cop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #19 February 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteI'm not discussing current laws, I'm discussing mnealtx's statement about what HE is OK with Swing and a miss. You're trying to troll, plain and simple. You're doing that by ignoring what Mike has said. No Dave, you are ignoring what I wrote. I QUOTED what he said wrote. He wrote: "I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment." Nothing there about convicted felons. I also asked how he would know if someone was under psychiatric treatment, and his answer was form 4473 Q12 (which amounts to self-certification). He's OK with that.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,405 #20 February 27, 2009 QuoteSelf-certification is the law Nice rant, but you aren't answering his question. Are YOU ok with self-certification? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #21 February 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo self certification is OK with you? Self-certification is the law - why do you have a problem with it? After all, the Brady Bunch *SWORE* that their check would prevent hundreds of thousands of illegal sales EVERY YEAR!!! Of course, there's been an absolutely MINISCULE number of arrests out of those hundreds of thousands of denials that they SWORE would happen - I guess actually catching CRIMINALS trying to buy GUNS in an ILLEGAL manner wasn't all THAT important to the Brady folks after all, now was it? Avoiding my question. Are you OK with someone walking out of their psychiatrist's office, going to a gun shop and self certifying that they are sane? Mr. Cho managed to buy his guns quite legally.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #22 February 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteSelf-certification is the law Nice rant, but you aren't answering his question. Are YOU ok with self-certification? No - the question is, why is he NOT ok with self-certification? If you want to debate the gun ban, then do so - I have no interest in answering your versions of "have you quit beating your wife yet" questions.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #23 February 27, 2009 If you deal with large numbers of people on a daily basis, your bullshit meter really get honed. Typically the best way to deal with bullshit is to confront it directly. So feel free to attack me personally instead of defining what an "assault weapon" is and how our currently restrictions aren't restrictive enough. Also please show and explain how the previous bill decreased any crimes involving a weapon. Please also show how when the bill sunsetted, how crime dramatically jumped with the previously banned weapons. Have you wondered why someone who has to deal with criminals with guns on a daily basis is so adamantly opposed to a new "assault weapon" ban?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 February 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo self certification is OK with you? Self-certification is the law - why do you have a problem with it? After all, the Brady Bunch *SWORE* that their check would prevent hundreds of thousands of illegal sales EVERY YEAR!!! Of course, there's been an absolutely MINISCULE number of arrests out of those hundreds of thousands of denials that they SWORE would happen - I guess actually catching CRIMINALS trying to buy GUNS in an ILLEGAL manner wasn't all THAT important to the Brady folks after all, now was it? Avoiding my question. Are you OK with someone walking out of their psychiatrist's office, going to a gun shop and self certifying that they are sane? I'm not avoiding anything - as I said above, I have no interest in playing your "have you quit beating your wife yet" games. If they have not be deemed to be dangerous to themselves or someone else, why not? And, if they HAVE - why the FUCK are they "walking out of their psychiatrists' office" and not under observation? QuoteMr. Cho managed to buy his guns quite legally. No, he did not - he LIED on the form. Unfortunately, the state did not flag the NICS database, so he did not trigger an alert. Now, tell me how increased laws on gunshops would have prevented Cho from getting his guns from a gang member?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #25 February 27, 2009 You still dodge and weave. You wrote: "I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal and is not under psychiatric treatment." Apparently this is NOT what you meant. You don't care if they ARE under treatment, you only care about what they CLAIM to be. Your recent statements show that what you really meant was: "I have no objection to arming someone that is not a wanted criminal or a convicted felon and claims that he or she is not under psychiatric treatment." Is that more accurate?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
