What Will You Do?

[SMTA]

"In the aftermath of the Orlando terrorist attack, President Barack Obama today called on Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban as well as pass legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to obtain firearms."

Obama Calls for Assault Weapons Ban, New 'No Fly, No Buy' Law

The president calls for new gun control measures in wake of Orlando attack.

abcnews.go.com

So what?
He can’t do anything now.
Did you whine this much when Trump outlawed bump stocks?

 

[Rucker61]

So what?
He can’t do anything now.
Did you whine this much when Trump outlawed bump stocks?

I definitely objected to such an unconstitutional action even though I never owned one and feel their only legitimate use is turning money into noise.

 

[BabaVoss]

The argument is good.

Is it? Ah, well I can hardly argue with such a robust and keenly analytical response. LOL… NO. It is a nonsensical argument.

No, there is a serious problem, but it isn't with an inanimate object. This really isn't sinking in with you, is it?

Oh, I hear what you are saying. I’m just pointing out that it makes no sense. Please explain how someone could kill 7 and wound 8 in a matter of minutes from a distance. YES, the GUN is a key part of the problem.

Your impressions are wrong on this.

Maybe you need to explain it better.

Absolutely. Start with the people, the criminals which commit the most gun crimes, most often with illegally obtained guns.

The guy in Allen had a legally obtained gun.

When written, 'well regulated militia' was nothing more than assembled private citizens with their own firearms.

When written, “shall not be infringed” when written was nothing more than an expression or guideline. (I’ve heard your argument before. It is a ridiculous notion, that the Founders chose the words “part of a well regulated militia” when they meant “everybody with a gun”. It is absurd.)

You'd be wrong there.

LOL. No. You are seriously equating a modern assault style weapon with a Puckle gun? Please.

More laws does will not improve the situation.

So we should not even try - because you think it won‘t help. They have and they certainly could. One thing is certain - ignoring this assures we will continue to see random, regular, and horrific mass murders committed using theses kinds of weapons. If you are OK with that, just say so.

Start with enforcing the laws already on the books, and of those laws, start with those which prosecute those who are illegally in possession of what most likely is an illegal firearm.

By all means. No one is proposing otherwise.

Look, you are new here, and this topic has been beaten to death a great many multiple times in a great many multiple threads.

Kind of you to notice, by my time here isn’t relevant. But - if this topic has been so ‘beaten to death’, why do you continue to engage?

.

 

[eohrnberger]

Is it? Ah, well I can hardly argue with such a robust and keenly analytical response. LOL… NO. It is a nonsensical argument.

Just because you say so?

Oh, I hear what you are saying. I’m just pointing out that it makes no sense. Please explain how someone could kill 7 and wound 8 in a matter of minutes from a distance. YES, the GUN is a key part of the problem.

The key part of the problem is not an inanimate object, it is the people who chose to break the law with that inanimate object.
The gun, on it's own, isn't going to do shit, except lay there. It's the human hand that picks it up and then uses it in bad decisions.

Incoherent babble deleted to save electrons.

 

[SMTA]

I definitely objected to such an unconstitutional action even though I never owned one and feel their only legitimate use is turning money into noise.

That’s a fair assessment.

 

[Rich2018]

I definitely objected to such an unconstitutional action even though I never owned one and feel their only legitimate use is turning money into noise.

Why was it unconstitutional ?

 

[rhinefire]

What power wants to ?

Figure it out.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Why was it unconstitutional ?

Because it did not go through Congress and become law. It was an administrative rule making that redefined a bump stock as a machine gun even though it does not meet the legal definition of a machine gun.

 

[post]

You can’t cry when I bet you supported women who didn’t want Obamacare. You know. The ones that got fined for keeping their bodies?. But abortion? My body my body. Hypocrites

 

[post]

If Gavin Newsom snubs out Biden in 24, like they did Bernie years ago, and he comes for your guns?

Will you willfully give them up? Or did you just suffer a horrible boating accident? Sold them all in a face to face deal in Tennessee?

Do you think most American will turn over their guns?

What say you?

 

[post]

And the ban was lifted because it didn't work.

 

[post]

Once I see Hollywood and video games stop glorifying the gun, then I'll believe people are serious about the gun culture in America. Just like during Covid I knew they weren't serious as they allowed airlines to fly, and one could sit 3 feet away from a hacking mess for 5 hours eating peanuts

Same thing

 

[post]

You kidding? They tried to force millions to take the Covid vaccine. And you think guns will get a pass?

 

[post]

It doesn’t mean that though. They lied to you.

 

[Rich2018]

Figure it out.

So you don't know
Got it.

 

[Rich2018]

Because it did not go through Congress and become law. It was an administrative rule making that redefined a bump stock as a machine gun even though it does not meet the legal definition of a machine gun.

The ATF classified bump stocks as a machine gun, which is already banned, however I understand it's gone to the Supreme Court for a ruling.

 

[JMB1911A1]

The ATF classified bump stocks as a machine gun, which is already banned, however I understand it's gone to the Supreme Court for a ruling.

The ATF did NOT classify bump stocks as machine guns originally. They then “reclassified” them in an administrative action. However, there is a very specific legal definition of a machine gun (multiple rounds with one trigger pull) that a bump stock does not meet. Hence, the ATF is making stuff up.

For someone so knowledgeable about guns, you don‘t seem to understand the technical issues here.

 

[BabaVoss]

Just because you say so?

It's called debate, where a discussion on a particular topic involves putting forth logical supporting arguments. I posited that the gun is a key part of the problem because of its capabilities, and I used the clear example of replacing the gun used in the Allen TX shooting with a plastic straw. Obviously killing a large number of people in a short time from a distance would not be possible without such a gun. Your response so far has been "no it's not."

I say with confidence that you argument would not pass muster in a high school debate. So yes, I win. Not because I say so, but because you failed to make your case. It s an old tactic used by gun advocates. "The gun by itself can't do anything" which is a cowardly reframing of the question as you do below. No one ever suggested it could, and it makes no sense in the context of the question at hand.

The key part of the problem is not an inanimate object, it is the people who chose to break the law with that inanimate object.
The gun, on it's own, isn't going to do shit, except lay there. It's the human hand that picks it up and then uses it in bad decisions.

Both are required, but without the gun the problem goes away. It is not simply an inanimate passive object WHEN IT IS USED. Why is that so hard to admit?

Incoherent babble deleted to save electrons.

See if someone else can explain it for you.

 

[RF667799]

It's called debate, where a discussion on a particular topic involves putting forth logical supporting arguments. I posited that the gun is a key part of the problem because of its capabilities, and I used the clear example of replacing the gun used in the Allen TX shooting with a plastic straw. Obviously killing a large number of people in a short time from a distance would not be possible without such a gun. Your response so far has been "no it's not."

I say with confidence that you argument would not pass muster in a high school debate. So yes, I win. Not because I say so, but because you failed to make your case. It s an old tactic used by gun advocates. "The gun by itself can't do anything" which is a cowardly reframing of the question as you do below. No one ever suggested it could, and it makes no sense in the context of the question at hand.


Both are required, but without the gun the problem goes away. It is not simply an inanimate passive object WHEN IT IS USED. Why is that so hard to admit?


See if someone else can explain it for you.

The problem of murders "goes away" without a gun?

Or are you saying that the problem of gun murders goes away without guns? That would be a rather silly statement to make.

 

[eohrnberger]

It's called debate, where a discussion on a particular topic involves putting forth logical supporting arguments. I posited that the gun is a key part of the problem because of its capabilities, and I used the clear example of replacing the gun used in the Allen TX shooting with a plastic straw. Obviously killing a large number of people in a short time from a distance would not be possible without such a gun. Your response so far has been "no it's not."

I say with confidence that you argument would not pass muster in a high school debate. So yes, I win. Not because I say so, but because you failed to make your case. It s an old tactic used by gun advocates. "The gun by itself can't do anything" which is a cowardly reframing of the question as you do below. No one ever suggested it could, and it makes no sense in the context of the question at hand.


Both are required, but without the gun the problem goes away.

It is not simply an inanimate passive object WHEN IT IS USED. Why is that so hard to admit?

Go over this assertion of yours slowly and carefully to detect the inconsistency.

See if someone else can explain it for you.

Because you sure can't?

This is going no where. I refer you to the many previous threads that have beaten this dead horse for your entertainment.

Have a good day.

 

[Rich2018]

The ATF did NOT classify bump stocks as machine guns originally. They then “reclassified” them in an administrative action. However, there is a very specific legal definition of a machine gun (multiple rounds with one trigger pull) that a bump stock does not meet. Hence, the ATF is making stuff up.

For someone so knowledgeable about guns, you don‘t seem to understand the technical issues here.

Er, I didn't say that bump stocks were machine guns did I ?

Merely that the ATF classified them as being so. Which is correct

You should learn to read more carefully.

 

[Moon]

If Gavin Newsom snubs out Biden in 24, like they did Bernie years ago, and he comes for your guns?

Will you willfully give them up? Or did you just suffer a horrible boating accident? Sold them all in a face to face deal in Tennessee?

Do you think most American will turn over their guns?

What say you?

Not really a good scenario since there’s really nothing a President can do to take anyone’s guns away. If he were elected, I’d expect to see him bleating about it but that’s about it. He’d probably try to have ATF and other agencies become more aggressive and loose in how they interpret their roles under current legislation, but nothing they can legally do about confiscating guns.

 

[Rich2018]

Not really a good scenario since there’s really nothing a President can do to take anyone’s guns away. If he were elected, I’d expect to see him bleating about it but that’s about it. He’d probably try to have ATF and other agencies become more aggressive and loose in how they interpret their roles under current legislation, but nothing they can legally do about confiscating guns.

That's the problem with the US Constitution. Politicians' hand are tied and you get political inertia

Everyone (who's not a gun owner) knows that the USA desperately needs gun control, but the government cannot enact any meaningful gun controls.

 

[BabaVoss]

The problem of murders "goes away" without a gun?

Or are you saying that the problem of gun murders goes away without guns? That would be a rather silly statement to make.

Read back though the thread.

 

[RF667799]

Read back though the thread.

Got no game, eh?