Chicago gun deaths-highest increase in many years

[jet57]

When I said "fully automatic sub machine guns and Ak47s" I assumed you knew I was referring to them because semi automatic AKs are pretty common.

I would assume any fully automatic weapons on the street are most likely illegally modded or from across the border. TD is like a gun encyclopedia so I'm sure he could explain that.

I used those examples as they have been shown to me for the same reason. My point then, was that you cannot walk into walmart or Joey's Ban-Bang Emporium and purchase submachine guns. Just like in Dillinger's day with BARs and Thompsons. You are correct to point out permits etc, however I hope that you got the point. As for across the border: such weapons cannot be purchased at all in Mexico, but I am sure than in teh close quarters of cartels, captains etc ship weapons with drugs. The street level guys though get their stuff on the streets. THAT is a problem which I address a lot here.

 

[Nap]

I used those examples as they have been shown to me for the same reason. My point then, was that you cannot walk into walmart or Joey's Ban-Bang Emporium and purchase submachine guns. Just like in Dillinger's day with BARs and Thompsons. You are correct to point out permits etc, however I hope that you got the point. As for across the border: such weapons cannot be purchased at all in Mexico, but I am sure than in teh close quarters of cartels, captains etc ship weapons with drugs. The street level guys though get their stuff on the streets. THAT is a problem which I address a lot here.

You keep bringing up Dillinger's days with BARs and Thompsons. You do understand it is nothing like that today, right? This is what I was talking about earlier, you are dishonestly trying to conflate semiautomatic with fully automatic weapons. Fully Automatic weapons are heavily restricted and has only been 2 homicides since 1934 by a legally obtained fully automatic weapon. So if it is really like you insist that it is like Dillinger's days with fully automatic weapons everywhere then you are making the case that gun control doesn't work and completely destroying your entire argument.

 

[jet57]

You keep bringing up Dillinger's days with BARs and Thompsons. You do understand it is nothing like that today, right? This is what I was talking about earlier, you are dishonestly trying to conflate semiautomatic with fully automatic weapons. Fully Automatic weapons are heavily restricted and has only been 2 homicides since 1934 by a legally obtained fully automatic weapon. So if it is really like you insist that it is like Dillinger's days with fully automatic weapons everywhere then you are making the case that gun control doesn't work and completely destroying your entire argument.

You're misinterpreting: the Dillinger days is a point about an arms race and how they got what they did: the weapons were made right here in America.

I'm not trying to compare fully automatic with semi automatic or trying to conflate anything: I showed you those two websites to show that your assertion of them being illegal is actually wrong, but I gave credit to you with respect to ease of purchase.

Dillinger et al got their weapons from the American streets, and so do our modern street gangs, THAT part of gangland history is still the same. The "Arms Race" between cops and robbers has not changed since the days of Dillinger either. The historic problem is that such weapons are procured right here in America and if you wish to stop that problem, then THAT flow of arm's must be stopped at it's source. THAT result, is directly tied to effort.

 

[Nap]

You're misinterpreting: the Dillinger days is a point about an arms race and how they got what they did: the weapons were made right here in America.

I'm not trying to compare fully automatic with semi automatic or trying to conflate anything: I showed you those two websites to show that your assertion of them being illegal is actually wrong, but I gave credit to you with respect to ease of purchase.

Dillinger et al got their weapons from the American streets, and so do our modern street gangs, THAT part of gangland history is still the same. The "Arms Race" between cops and robbers has not changed since the days of Dillinger either. The historic problem is that such weapons are procured right here in America and if you wish to stop that problem, then THAT flow of arm's must be stopped at it's source. THAT result, is directly tied to effort.

You may not be trying to but that is what you are doing. Politicians use those same arguments precisely to mislead low information voters to believe that these so called "assault weapons" and "Military STYLED" weapons are the same weapons they see on TV. Gun control relies heavily on low information voters because most of the people that have common knowledge about firearms are against it.

 

[Rucker61]

Are you suggesting that some people's interpretations of the constitution do not include the right to personal safety?

Why do you think you have a right to personal safety?

 

[jet57]

You may not be trying to but that is what you are doing. Politicians use those same arguments precisely to mislead low information voters to believe that these so called "assault weapons" and "Military STYLED" weapons are the same weapons they see on TV. Gun control relies heavily on low information voters because most of the people that have common knowledge about firearms are against it.

Yeah... this is where the conversation starts to fall apart. You're reading into what I'm saying because you've been prejudiced.

 

[Nap]

Yeah... this is where the conversation starts to fall apart. You're reading into what I'm saying because you've been prejudiced.

I'm sorry if I took it the wrong way, but you do have to admit that is a fairly common tactic from the anti-gun crowd so it is going to be natural for me to jump on that line of thought.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm sorry if I took it the wrong way, but you do have to admit that is a fairly common tactic from the anti-gun crowd so it is going to be natural for me to jump on that line of thought.

you can pretty well dismiss any argument that tries to argue "military styled" or other such crap. Almost every modern firearm has military heritage in its background. The most popular big game hunting rifles use the bolt action design Paul Mauser created for the Main German Battle rifle in WWI and WWII-the Mauser 98. Semi auto rifles, on the other hand, were FIRST a civilian weapon and available to private citizens before any major player issued a semi auto rifle

using the logic of the gun haters, bolt action hunting rifles are more taboo than semi auto rifles!

btw how can anyone with an IQ above room temperature claim that say a Colt 1911 should be banned as a "MILITARY WEAPON" but the Smith and Wesson M&P in 45 ACP (which holds several more rounds) is not to be banned because it has never been issued to a modern military IIRC.

the fact is any hand fired firearm should be available to lawful citizens be they a 22 target pistol (banned as assault weapons in some cases in California) to a Fully Automatic FnH FAL. From a Beretta 22 short MINX, to a BARRETT 50 caliber long range "target interdiction" rifle

military or not-it makes no difference.

 

[Nap]

you can pretty well dismiss any argument that tries to argue "military styled" or other such crap. Almost every modern firearm has military heritage in its background. The most popular big game hunting rifles use the bolt action design Paul Mauser created for the Main German Battle rifle in WWI and WWII-the Mauser 98. Semi auto rifles, on the other hand, were FIRST a civilian weapon and available to private citizens before any major player issued a semi auto rifle

using the logic of the gun haters, bolt action hunting rifles are more taboo than semi auto rifles!

btw how can anyone with an IQ above room temperature claim that say a Colt 1911 should be banned as a "MILITARY WEAPON" but the Smith and Wesson M&P in 45 ACP (which holds several more rounds) is not to be banned because it has never been issued to a modern military IIRC.

the fact is any hand fired firearm should be available to lawful citizens be they a 22 target pistol (banned as assault weapons in some cases in California) to a Fully Automatic FnH FAL. From a Beretta 22 short MINX, to a BARRETT 50 caliber long range "target interdiction" rifle

military or not-it makes no difference.

I have to say your gun posts are rather refreshing. It's like a knowledge bomb, please continue good sir.

Some of those laws are so funny. The thumb hole stock and the pistol grip ones are the best, heaven forbid they make a gun more ergonomic.

I seen some AR-15s with a Hello Kitty paint job once, won't be long before those are banned for advertising to kids or some nonsense.

 

[TurtleDude]

I have to say your gun posts are rather refreshing. It's like a knowledge bomb, please continue good sir.

Some of those laws are so funny. The thumb hole stock and the pistol grip ones are the best, heaven forbid they make a gun more ergonomical.

I seen some AR-15s with a Hello Kitty paint job once, won't be long before those are banned for advertising to kids or some nonsense.

Thank you

when the Clinton gun ban happened, I had been married for about 9 months and my wife wanted a LW AR 15 so I got her one and of course it had a fixed stock and no bayonet lug. well the minute the ban expired, I put a pink stock, pink hand guard and ultimately a mag pul pink pistol grip on it. i am sure the howling hysterics will claim its too appealing to "kids"

Here is my favorite get around the law AR 15

it gets around the idiotic NY ban.

due to the size of the file you have to open it

its from windham weaponry


http://www.windhamweaponry.com/images/rifles/hiresjpg/R16M4FTT-CF1-NYTHD-R.jpg

 

[Nap]

you can pretty well dismiss any argument that tries to argue "military styled" or other such crap. Almost every modern firearm has military heritage in its background. The most popular big game hunting rifles use the bolt action design Paul Mauser created for the Main German Battle rifle in WWI and WWII-the Mauser 98. Semi auto rifles, on the other hand, were FIRST a civilian weapon and available to private citizens before any major player issued a semi auto rifle

using the logic of the gun haters, bolt action hunting rifles are more taboo than semi auto rifles!

btw how can anyone with an IQ above room temperature claim that say a Colt 1911 should be banned as a "MILITARY WEAPON" but the Smith and Wesson M&P in 45 ACP (which holds several more rounds) is not to be banned because it has never been issued to a modern military IIRC.

the fact is any hand fired firearm should be available to lawful citizens be they a 22 target pistol (banned as assault weapons in some cases in California) to a Fully Automatic FnH FAL. From a Beretta 22 short MINX, to a BARRETT 50 caliber long range "target interdiction" rifle

military or not-it makes no difference.

Also, don't be scaring these people on the M&P. I love my .40 or did until I lost it in a tragic boating accident.....

 

[Nap]

Thank you

when the Clinton gun ban happened, I had been married for about 9 months and my wife wanted a LW AR 15 so I got her one and of course it had a fixed stock and no bayonet lug. well the minute the ban expired, I put a pink stock, pink hand guard and ultimately a mag pul pink pistol grip on it. i am sure the howling hysterics will claim its too appealing to "kids"

Here is my favorite get around the law AR 15

it gets around the idiotic NY ban.

due to the size of the file you have to open it

its from windham weaponry


http://www.windhamweaponry.com/images/rifles/hiresjpg/R16M4FTT-CF1-NYTHD-R.jpg

Ha, I live in Mississippi and never lost anything in New York or California. As long as Trump doesn't destroy the Republican party enough to keep the D's from passing stupid Federal laws I am good.

 

[TurtleDude]

Ha, I live in Mississippi and never lost anything in New York or California. As long as Trump doesn't destroy the Republican party enough to keep the D's from passing stupid Federal laws I am good.

Here is what the dems were planning if Hillary won

1) major federal bans would not be attempted since Hillary remembered what happened to her party in 1994 after the idiotic gun ban resulted in the Dems taking a brutal thrashing a few months later. secondly, the Heller precedent is pretty tough to overcome

2) rather, since some states have refused to adopt McDonald and actually impose the strict scrutiny analysis to state gun laws via 14 amendment incorporation, Democrats would continue to appoint anti gun judges who would support and sustain idiotic gun restrictions in the most bannerrhoid of the blue states-California, NY, CT, MD, Illinois and NJ. then after there were a bunch of decisions sustaining STATE rapes of the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, then the Democrats would try to pass another federal law and claim PRECEDENT had been established and the federal law should be supported-and by then she'd have a majority on the supremes with Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer-all hard core gun banners along with Kagan and probably another SJW liberal from demographics most likely to produce anti gun justices.

 

[Nap]

Here is what the dems were planning if Hillary won

1) major federal bans would not be attempted since Hillary remembered what happened to her party in 1994 after the idiotic gun ban resulted in the Dems taking a brutal thrashing a few months later. secondly, the Heller precedent is pretty tough to overcome

2) rather, since some states have refused to adopt McDonald and actually impose the strict scrutiny analysis to state gun laws via 14 amendment incorporation, Democrats would continue to appoint anti gun judges who would support and sustain idiotic gun restrictions in the most bannerrhoid of the blue states-California, NY, CT, MD, Illinois and NJ. then after there were a bunch of decisions sustaining STATE rapes of the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, then the Democrats would try to pass another federal law and claim PRECEDENT had been established and the federal law should be supported-and by then she'd have a majority on the supremes with Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer-all hard core gun banners along with Kagan and probably another SJW liberal from demographics most likely to produce anti gun justices.

I figured as much, just not as detailed

I knew if they ever get majority on Supreme Court then we are screwed.

 

[TurtleDude]

I figured as much, just not as detailed

I knew if they ever get majority on Supreme Court then we are screwed.

Democrats have proven that when it comes to gun issues-as well as some RINOS like Stevens, that they don't care what the founders intended, they think that congress should be able to ban any gun it wants

 

[Kobie]

Democrats have proven that when it comes to gun issues-as well as some RINOS like Stevens, that they don't care what the founders intended, they think that congress should be able to ban any gun it wants

Did the founders intend for AR-15s to be legal?

Before you answer that, remember that firepower like that did not exist when the founders did. Go.

 

[truthatallcost]

Did the founders intend for AR-15s to be legal?

Before you answer that, remember that firepower like that did not exist when the founders did. Go.

I get the feeling that if we could resurrect the founders from the dead, they'd take a look around and facepalm themselves back to death.

 

[Kobie]

I get the feeling that if we could resurrect the founders from the dead, they'd take a look around and facepalm themselves back to death.

I remember hearing someone asking what Abraham Lincoln would think of Air Force One. I also remember thinking he'd probably crap himself in terror at the idea of flying through the air at 40,000 feet in an aluminum tube.

 

[TurtleDude]

Did the founders intend for AR-15s to be legal?

Before you answer that, remember that firepower like that did not exist when the founders did. Go.

what we know is the founders never intended the federal government to actually give congress power to regulate what private citizens do in their sovereign states except for an extremely limited number of actions-such as counterfeiting the public coin or robbing postal facilities

Federal Gun control was never a power the founders intended. and guess what-if you have ever seen a multi shot firearm-which the founders did-you can EASILY conceive of one that fires faster-just like the guys racing airplanes that a modern F1 car can outrun, talked about the future having planes going many times as fast

SO what you are arguing its that since the founders COULD NOT have envisioned such firearms (which they could) that means they WOULD have given the federal government powers that they did not think it should have based on the weaponry back then

that's idiotic. and they did provide for amendments. but the entire purpose of the second amendment was mainly to guarantee free citizens the right of self defense and the means to secure that right and that was not based on the state of the art.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

I remember hearing someone asking what Abraham Lincoln would think of Air Force One. I also remember thinking he'd probably crap himself in terror at the idea of flying through the air at 40,000 feet in an aluminum tube.

Actually, I just saw on an episode of Drunk History, Lincoln formed a brigade of hot air balloons to spy on the South. So he might be ok with the idea.

I like to imagine Ben Franklin coming forward in time and losing his **** over indoor plumbing and central heat.

 

[TurtleDude]

I remember hearing someone asking what Abraham Lincoln would think of Air Force One. I also remember thinking he'd probably crap himself in terror at the idea of flying through the air at 40,000 feet in an aluminum tube.

Lincoln could easily imagine the modern firearms far more easily than the internet and computer driven communications. the technological gap between a spencer carbine (available before Lincoln died) and an M4 machine carbine is rather small. The difference between a manual printing press and fax machines, high speed laser printers and of course email is beyond many modern Americans ability to explain how they work.

 

[Kobie]

what we know is the founders never intended the federal government to actually give congress power to regulate what private citizens do in their sovereign states except for an extremely limited number of actions-such as counterfeiting the public coin or robbing postal facilities

Federal Gun control was never a power the founders intended. and guess what-if you have ever seen a multi shot firearm-which the founders did-you can EASILY conceive of one that fires faster-just like the guys racing airplanes that a modern F1 car can outrun, talked about the future having planes going many times as fast

SO what you are arguing its that since the founders COULD NOT have envisioned such firearms (which they could) that means they WOULD have given the federal government powers that they did not think it should have based on the weaponry back then

that's idiotic. and they did provide for amendments. but the entire purpose of the second amendment was mainly to guarantee free citizens the right of self defense and the means to secure that right and that was not based on the state of the art.

I'm not arguing anything; I'm just poking holes in your rather specious logic.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm not arguing anything; I'm just poking holes in your rather specious logic.

no you are not-you are trying to be contrarian without having a clue what you are talking about.

You are trying to insinuate that if the founders knew about AR 15 Rifles, they would have decided federal gun control was needed. In reality the founders wanted citizens to be well armed enough to keep a federal army-which could become oppressive in check. If they came back, they would be wondering why we all don't have Surface to Air Missiles in our homes and the village green doesn't have a public shooting range with state of the art firearms for the citizens to use

 

[Kobie]

no you are not-you are trying to be contrarian without having a clue what you are talking about.

You are trying to insinuate that if the founders knew about AR 15 Rifles, they would have decided federal gun control was needed.

The word "gun" does not appear in the Second Amendment. Would they be cool with citizens owning nuclear weapons?

My point is that reaching back to people who have been dead for damn near 200 years is no way to make a reasoned argument.

 

[TurtleDude]

The word "gun" does not appear in the Second Amendment. Would they be cool with citizens owning nuclear weapons?

My point is that reaching back to people who have been dead for damn near 200 years is no way to make a reasoned argument.

the word Catholic or Jew or protestant does not appear in the first amendment Telephone doesnt appear in the fourth amendment. torture doesnt appear either concerning cruel and unusual punishment. Anal sex, gay marriage and abortion don't appear in the bill of rights either.

what is your point.

claiming that the founders would have done something different to AVOID AND EVADE THEIR CLEAR LANGUAGE AS THEY SET FORTH THE LAW OF THE LAND IS JUST infantile argument