Fatal shooting at Denver screening of The Dark Knight Rises

leaningright said:
What is often espoused by those who are not on the side of gun owners is nothing short of what the same folks were against with the Patriot Act. It is a limitation of freedoms and privacy for some folks (gun owners)...and (some non gun owners) I'm all for it as long as it isn't my freedoms and privacy your limiting...seems to be the attitude.

Winterborn has made some good cases on this thread and I agree with much that he has said.
Click to expand...

So, nukes for All!
 
j-mac said:
But you have yet to define 'assualt rifles' accurately, plus ammo sales in the US would be virtually impossible without numbering every single round. Times are a changing alright, but not in the direction of freedom if you want every facet of life approved by government.
Click to expand...

Then continue to enjoy terrorism!
 
j-mac said:
Strawman...No one is advocating that. It is just more silliness from the 'take all their guns' crowd.
Click to expand...

No, you want unlimited rights to weapons, why not nukes? If the government comes after you, a mere assault weapon will not stop them! Go for the big guns!
 
Rana said:
No, you want unlimited rights to weapons, why not nukes? If the government comes after you, a mere assault weapon will not stop them! Go for the big guns!
Click to expand...

Show me the politician running on the 'Nukes for everyone' platform....Now stop with the nonsense please.
 
WinterBorn said:
That is exactly right. the gov't has made it virtually impossible to commit someone until AFTER they harm someone or themselves. In other words, we can only hope they fail on their first attempt.
Click to expand...

WinterBorn said:
Yes, they use the mental health system to get criminals off. But I think what j-mac was talking about is that lawsuits have made it increasingly difficult to commit someone until AFTER they have committed a crime.
Click to expand...

On this point I’m agreeing with WinterBorn. Me and the better half, along with a family member, have been trying to get his ex Baker Act’d for a year and a half. It’s virtually impossible, according to the police.


Rana said:
This is another thing that needs to be monitored, like fertilizer purchases and sudafed! If your name appears on a list too many times, then an agent needs to pay you a visit to see why you are purchasing a great deal of ammo. Now I am talking ammunition for an assault weapon if we are going to allow people to own them.
Click to expand...

Amen! That as well as what I suggested earlier. Hopefully, we can all pray something can be done now to prevent futher killings like this.

WinterBorn said:
The problem with regulations on sales between private citizens is that we would have to allow private citizens access to the NCIC system. I'm not sure that is going to happen.
Click to expand...

Gatorman said:
Careful and well thought out regulation can do better about keeping these firearms from getting into the hands of the evil intenders, no? The 2nd amendment has been interpreted numerous times and will continue to be reinterpreted as long as we have these type problems. The people demand it and ultimately the NRA and other gun nuts can't stop it.
Click to expand...

There has to be a way, other than taking away everyone’s guns. Some kind of ban is needed, particulary with the automatic and semi-automatic weapons. But the first step would be serious curtailment of the NRA’s lobbying efforts to keep their money out of the hands of politicians so all heads can be clear and we can develop workable solutions to this problem. Secondly, require uniform federal laws that prevent guns moving to states with strict regulation from states with little regulation. (Florida is one of the largest exporters of stolen weapons because of our lax laws.)

Register each and every gun. Limit the number of guns an individual can own to prevent straw purchases. Get rid of gun shows, etc., to prevent the illegal sale of guns through them. Think it doesn’t happen? BS. Many of the purchases made at gun shows are individual to individual, no dealer involved. Is this harsh? Yes. Blame the crooked gun dealer at the gun show who’s ruined it for the honest guys.

Gatorman said:
The shop owners already have that right and are normally acutely aware of what to look for from a gun or ammo purchaser. The unscrupulous ones, however, don't care and will chase that dollar all the way to the morgue if necessary. They are very much a problem in that respect.
Click to expand...

Gatorman said:
Gun shows and person to person sales have no such restrictions in most places. Even those that do require better record keeping in these events it is rarely enforced.
Click to expand...

True see above.

j-mac said:
Nonsense. Gun shows do have to follow the law. But if you are implying that the laws are not being enforced, that is a different problem...Why do you think that is? Too many laws to enforce them all maybe?
Click to expand...

As proven, gun shows do not follow the law. And your lame argument merely underscores the need for uniform, federal regulation of all guns.



j-mac said:
the reality of this discussion is that when you take the guns out of the hands of responsible, law abiding citizens then you are left with those that are not law abiding, responsible citizens owning the guns against an unarmed population....
Click to expand...

Bullshit, Mr. Heston. As I’ve proven already, those guns in the hands of criminals were stolen from the “hands of responsible, law abiding citizens”.

evince said:
see this is how gun laws should be discussed.
intelligently.
Click to expand...

Yes. Until this guy showed up. I’m sure STY won’t be far behind…

Yurt said:
still nothing howey?
Click to expand...
 
Howey said:
As proven, gun shows do not follow the law. And your lame argument merely underscores the need for uniform, federal regulation of all guns.





Bullshit, Mr. Heston. As I’ve proven already, those guns in the hands of criminals were stolen from the “hands of responsible, law abiding citizens”.
Click to expand...


You've proven nothing, unless of course you were out to prove what a snarky smart ass one can be, if that is the case then I would say you've succeeded ....


I am sure that next, all you'll have to offer is lame name calling, and insults...par for the course, loser.
 
Rana said:
So, nukes for All!
Click to expand...

No mam. I don't think Winterborn (or I for that matter) have ever espoused unfettered access to all sorts of weaponry. He has obviously not had an opportunity to answer your question about the need for assault weapons. To be classified an 'assault weapon' really has more to do with looks than use in combat/killing situations. Many rifles designed for hunting "look" like 'assault weapons.' The big deal is magazine capacity, which he did mention that he didn't have a problem with reasonable limitations....at least that's what I think I read and hope that I'm not mistaken. I will admit that ten years ago I would have argued vociferously against restricting magazine capacity. Not so much now. Some things can be and should be limited. We definitely disagree on what those things should be. But "nukes for All" is a huge over generalization, IMO.
 
leaningright said:
No mam. I don't think Winterborn (or I for that matter) have ever espoused unfettered access to all sorts of weaponry. He has obviously not had an opportunity to answer your question about the need for assault weapons. To be classified an 'assault weapon' really has more to do with looks than use in combat/killing situations. Many rifles designed for hunting "look" like 'assault weapons.' The big deal is magazine capacity, which he did mention that he didn't have a problem with reasonable limitations....at least that's what I think I read and hope that I'm not mistaken. I will admit that ten years ago I would have argued vociferously against restricting magazine capacity. Not so much now. Some things can be and should be limited. We definitely disagree on what those things should be. But "nukes for All" is a huge over generalization, IMO.
Click to expand...

I was being over the top, mimicking one of the right leaning posters, I forgot my snarky, smart ass, smiley face!
 
leaningright said:
No mam. I don't think Winterborn (or I for that matter) have ever espoused unfettered access to all sorts of weaponry. He has obviously not had an opportunity to answer your question about the need for assault weapons. To be classified an 'assault weapon' really has more to do with looks than use in combat/killing situations. Many rifles designed for hunting "look" like 'assault weapons.' The big deal is magazine capacity, which he did mention that he didn't have a problem with reasonable limitations....at least that's what I think I read and hope that I'm not mistaken. I will admit that ten years ago I would have argued vociferously against restricting magazine capacity. Not so much now. Some things can be and should be limited. We definitely disagree on what those things should be. But "nukes for All" is a huge over generalization, IMO.
Click to expand...

rana is, unfortunately, an emotional mine field. i ignore most of her posts because they are nothing more than strange emo rants.
 
Rana said:
I was being over the top, mimicking one of the right leaning posters, I forgot my snarky, smart ass, smiley face!
Click to expand...


Awww....Did I hit a nerve there Rana? Maybe instead of being a nasty, little insulting group liberals in here could try just once disagreeing and leaving it at that...But no, they have to (from what I see so far) egg each other on with cute little smarmy comments, then cry like hurt children when the get back what they give...I actually have much more respect for many of you if you could make an argument without all the 'moron' 'idiot' and various curse laden insults instead of choosing to actually make an argument....But hey...I hold out hope...
 
j-mac said:
Awww....Did I hit a nerve there Rana? Maybe instead of being a nasty, little insulting group liberals in here could try just once disagreeing and leaving it at that...But no, they have to (from what I see so far) egg each other on with cute little smarmy comments, then cry like hurt children when the get back what they give...I actually have much more respect for many of you if you could make an argument without all the 'moron' 'idiot' and various curse laden insults instead of choosing to actually make an argument....But hey...I hold out hope...
Click to expand...

J Mac, you get what you give, you are no innocent when it comes to insults, sorry, but do unto others, etc.
 
leaningright said:
What is often espoused by those who are not on the side of gun owners is nothing short of what the same folks were against with the Patriot Act. It is a limitation of freedoms and privacy for some folks (gun owners)...and (some non gun owners) I'm all for it as long as it isn't my freedoms and privacy your limiting...seems to be the attitude.

Winterborn has made some good cases on this thread and I agree with much that he has said.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Rana said:
Winterborn, why do people need assault weapons? Have you addressed that, if you have, I missed it. I don't understand the need for a private citizen to have a need for one. Just like hand grenades and nuclear weapons.

I see in history, but again, I am not an expert, that when a government turns against it citizenry, unless a portion of the military doesn't side with the citizens, or a foreign nation intervene on the citizens behalf, then you having your own little assault weapon isn't going to do too much except prolong the inevitable. I guess it is just the human condition, the will to survive.
Click to expand...

I did mention my own rifle (which fits some descriptions of an "assault rifle"), but I don't think I discussed "assault rifles" on the whole.

First I would ask for a definition of "assault rifle". I have a Bushmaster Varminter. It is an AR15 type rifle, except mine has a slightly longer barrel and no handle on top. I use it to hunt coyote.

Some of the criteria for "assault rifles" is purely cosmetic. The description in Bill Clinton's ban listed rifles with bayonet mount. I'm not sure but I doubt there have been many drive-by bayonetings.

Wikipedia lists the following as the descriptions of "assault weapons":
"Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine"


Much of that is cosmetic and obviously written by people with little or no knowledge of firearms.

The one that stands out, for me, is the capacity on the shotguns, since that would take out many guns people have purchased for home protection.
 
WinterBorn said:
I did mention my own rifle (which fits some descriptions of an "assault rifle"), but I don't think I discussed "assault rifles" on the whole.

First I would ask for a definition of "assault rifle". I have a Bushmaster Varminter. It is an AR15 type rifle, except mine has a slightly longer barrel and no handle on top. I use it to hunt coyote.

Some of the criteria for "assault rifles" is purely cosmetic. The description in Bill Clinton's ban listed rifles with bayonet mount. I'm not sure but I doubt there have been many drive-by bayonetings.

Wikipedia lists the following as the descriptions of "assault weapons":
"Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine"


Much of that is cosmetic and obviously written by people with little or no knowledge of firearms.

The one that stands out, for me, is the capacity on the shotguns, since that would take out many guns people have purchased for home protection.
Click to expand...

I think the 10 round law was a good start, a compromise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top