Gun control loons getting loonier
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:58:33 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Gun control loons getting loonier
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Gun control loons getting loonier  (Read 5627 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2014, 08:55:36 AM »

And you know what, while I don't see the appeal personally, especially at the price, I can easily see some hunting enthusiast wanting one so as to be able to brag about bringing down a trophy deer with a single shot at 1000 yards.  So the no legitimate purpose argument can be quickly be discarded.

It's nothing really to brag about if the gun is doing all the work.

Well if the gun cost only $270, sure.  But at $27,000?  Even if the brag is about being able to waste money instead of skill, it's still a brag.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: September 20, 2014, 01:45:40 PM »

Also, for the aforementioned gun nuts, everything is a piece of evidence that Obama is going to take their guns. Literally everything.

Obama used the Russia/Ukraine crisis to ban the importation of Russian AK-pattern receivers and parts so........

Gun control loonies will literally use anything. The Clinton administration banned hi-capacity magazines, which turned gun dealers into millionaires.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: September 22, 2014, 10:31:43 AM »

The loons are the ones that think military-grade deadly weapons should be legally owned by civilians.

And police.  Damn man I know a state cop was killed but it looks like the PA State Army not State Police are out looking for the killer.  Complete military weapons and garb.......ugh.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: September 22, 2014, 11:54:27 AM »

Also, for the aforementioned gun nuts, everything is a piece of evidence that Obama is going to take their guns. Literally everything.

Obama used the Russia/Ukraine crisis to ban the importation of Russian AK-pattern receivers and parts so........

Gun control loonies will literally use anything. The Clinton administration banned hi-capacity magazines, which turned gun dealers into millionaires.

The NRA reacted to Heller by soliciting for funds, saying they must redouble their efforts, as though Obama's reaction of doing nothing at all were all the proof anyone needed of his ill intent toward guns.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,611
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2014, 01:00:50 PM »

Also, for the aforementioned gun nuts, everything is a piece of evidence that Obama is going to take their guns. Literally everything.

Obama used the Russia/Ukraine crisis to ban the importation of Russian AK-pattern receivers and parts so........

Gun control loonies will literally use anything. The Clinton administration banned hi-capacity magazines, which turned gun dealers into millionaires.

The NRA reacted to Heller by soliciting for funds, saying they must redouble their efforts, as though Obama's reaction of doing nothing at all were all the proof anyone needed of his ill intent toward guns.

For the NRA nuts if Obama says one day that he likes women with big breasts, it would be further proof of a conspiracy by the big bad gubmint to take away their guns.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2014, 01:45:09 PM »

The NRA reacted to Heller by soliciting for funds, saying they must redouble their efforts, as though Obama's reaction of doing nothing at all were all the proof anyone needed of his ill intent toward guns.

Do nothing? He just signed EO 13661, which effectively bans the importation of all Russian-made arms. Perhaps banning military equipment would be reasonable, but admin has banned everything, which was an opportunistic kick to the groin of the AK-47 pattern industry, which has very little to do with Russian military arms.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2014, 03:16:10 PM »

If we're talking about essentially military weapons, what is the point of owning them?  You don't go deer hunting with an M-16.  There is no legitimate purpose for consumers owning these guns.

First off, this rifle is akin to an M21 not a M16. As dead0man already pointed out, sniper rifles are a completely different beast than automatic rifles.  And you know what, while I don't see the appeal personally, especially at the price, I can easily see some hunting enthusiast wanting one so as to be able to brag about bringing down a trophy deer with a single shot at 1000 yards.  So the no legitimate purpose argument can be quickly be discarded.  So can the anti-terrorist argument since actual terrorist groups such as ISIL and DPM already have access to military sniper rifles that serve the same purpose and are cheaper.

You can play that game with any particular gun.  Sure, one boutique model of gun is probably not significant.  It's an issue of where you draw the line between legal and illegal.

True, but there is no bright line separating this gun from a "legitimate" hunting rifle, so trying to ban it will arouse a whole lot of heat from the pro-gun nuts, and even if the anti-gun nuts were to win such a battle, it's doubtful the win would end up having saved any lives as even if a genuine nut were to make use of it, that nut would likely have killed and wounded more people with a different gun.

Technically a hunter targeting a deer is a sniper except that the object of his attack is not human. A sniper is a specially-trained soldier who typically has a high likelihood of killing people but little of surviving once detected.

Accuracy of a shot and the potential for killing several persons at once is the difference between a hunting rifle and a machine gun. Getting extreme precision in a shot is inconsistent with rapid fire.

One typically has only one shot at a deer... or a high-value military target (let us say a senior officer or a high-level political figure).
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2014, 03:41:42 PM »

The NRA reacted to Heller by soliciting for funds, saying they must redouble their efforts, as though Obama's reaction of doing nothing at all were all the proof anyone needed of his ill intent toward guns.

Do nothing? He just signed EO 13661, which effectively bans the importation of all Russian-made arms. Perhaps banning military equipment would be reasonable, but admin has banned everything, which was an opportunistic kick to the groin of the AK-47 pattern industry, which has very little to do with Russian military arms.

Setting aside the fact that the executive order was clearly not issued for the purpose of a gun ban, there's also the fact that there are multiple suppliers of AK-47 pattern weapons, not all of which are Russian, and the further fact that even if Russia were the sole source, there are plenty of other automatic and semi-automatic weapons of equivalent effectiveness available from a multitude of suppliers from many countries.  The idea that EO 13661 in either intent or effect has any impact on the ability of people to exercise their 2nd amendment rights is utter nonsense of the sort that can only be believed by those who don't ever bother to think at all on this issue, but proceed to reflexively duckspeak the views they hear from talk radio or the like.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: September 22, 2014, 03:48:45 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2014, 10:35:40 PM by True Federalist »

If we're talking about essentially military weapons, what is the point of owning them?  You don't go deer hunting with an M-16.  There is no legitimate purpose for consumers owning these guns.

First off, this rifle is akin to an M21 not a M16. As dead0man already pointed out, sniper rifles are a completely different beast than automatic rifles.  And you know what, while I don't see the appeal personally, especially at the price, I can easily see some hunting enthusiast wanting one so as to be able to brag about bringing down a trophy deer with a single shot at 1000 yards.  So the no legitimate purpose argument can be quickly be discarded.  So can the anti-terrorist argument since actual terrorist groups such as ISIL and DPM already have access to military sniper rifles that serve the same purpose and are cheaper.

You can play that game with any particular gun.  Sure, one boutique model of gun is probably not significant.  It's an issue of where you draw the line between legal and illegal.

True, but there is no bright line separating this gun from a "legitimate" hunting rifle, so trying to ban it will arouse a whole lot of heat from the pro-gun nuts, and even if the anti-gun nuts were to win such a battle, it's doubtful the win would end up having saved any lives as even if a genuine nut were to make use of it, that nut would likely have killed and wounded more people with a different gun.

Technically a hunter targeting a deer is a sniper except that the object of his attack is not human. A sniper is a specially-trained soldier who typically has a high likelihood of killing people but little of surviving once detected.

Accuracy of a shot and the potential for killing several persons at once is the difference between a hunting rifle and a machine gun. Getting extreme precision in a shot is inconsistent with rapid fire.

One typically has only one shot at a deer... or a high-value military target (let us say a senior officer or a high-level political figure).

I find it fascinating you used so many words to comment on my rebuttal of bedstuy's previous post without saying anything that contradicted what I said, and indeed to some extent acknowledged I was right, while using a tone appropriate to scathing rejoinder of what I had said.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: September 22, 2014, 03:50:52 PM »

Sport hunters are not the problem. Machine guns are intended to cause multiple casualties. 
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: September 22, 2014, 10:37:14 PM »

Sport hunters are not the problem. Machine guns are intended to cause multiple casualties. 

And the gun in question in this thread is not a machine gun, so what's your point?
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: September 22, 2014, 11:56:52 PM »

If we're talking about essentially military weapons, what is the point of owning them?  You don't go deer hunting with an M-16.  There is no legitimate purpose for consumers owning these guns.

First off, this rifle is akin to an M21 not a M16. As dead0man already pointed out, sniper rifles are a completely different beast than automatic rifles.  And you know what, while I don't see the appeal personally, especially at the price, I can easily see some hunting enthusiast wanting one so as to be able to brag about bringing down a trophy deer with a single shot at 1000 yards.  So the no legitimate purpose argument can be quickly be discarded.  So can the anti-terrorist argument since actual terrorist groups such as ISIL and DPM already have access to military sniper rifles that serve the same purpose and are cheaper.

You can play that game with any particular gun.  Sure, one boutique model of gun is probably not significant.  It's an issue of where you draw the line between legal and illegal.

True, but there is no bright line separating this gun from a "legitimate" hunting rifle, so trying to ban it will arouse a whole lot of heat from the pro-gun nuts, and even if the anti-gun nuts were to win such a battle, it's doubtful the win would end up having saved any lives as even if a genuine nut were to make use of it, that nut would likely have killed and wounded more people with a different gun.

I don't think you got my point.  With any gun, there's a regulatory question: Do the benefits of commercial sale of this gun outweigh the danger and risk to the public?  I think that's a technical discussion that I'm ill-equipped to weigh in on.  If it's essentially the same as any other rifle people commonly use, I would agree with you.

In the case of this gun, I just don't really see why it's so terribly important that people have access to it.  People can go hunting whether it's legal or not.  I don't see how we could justify any risk to human beings because some high class redneck wants to brag about shooting a deer from really far away.  Sure, maybe the risk of this gun is no different from other legal guns.  But, I certainly don't understand why we need to credit someone's desire to shoot something in a very specific way.  What if someone wants to be able to kill the deer with mustard gas, a machine gun or with dynamite?  Do they deserve access to all those weapons because they have very specific killing fetishes?

And, I suppose you're correct about the danger of a long-range rifle for mass shooting incidents.  However, you could also make the argument that a very long-range, accurate gun could be a danger when it comes to assassinations.  Or situations like the Beltway sniper case.  Maybe at some point you just need to say a gun is deadly and accurate enough for anyone to play with.  It might be a somewhat arbitrary line, but we don't need to make deadlier and deadlier guns available to the public just because we can. 
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: September 23, 2014, 02:31:25 AM »

Setting aside the fact that the executive order was clearly not issued for the purpose of a gun ban, there's also the fact that there are multiple suppliers of AK-47 pattern weapons, not all of which are Russian, and the further fact that even if Russia were the sole source, there are plenty of other automatic and semi-automatic weapons of equivalent effectiveness available from a multitude of suppliers from many countries.  The idea that EO 13661 in either intent or effect has any impact on the ability of people to exercise their 2nd amendment rights is utter nonsense of the sort that can only be believed by those who don't ever bother to think at all on this issue, but proceed to reflexively duckspeak the views they hear from talk radio or the like.

Your argument is that the EO is not explicitly about gun control nor is it an effective form of gun control; therefore, it cannot be an anti-gun measure. Non sequitur?

Do you think the Obama administration understood what EO 13661 would do to the civilian arms market? Do you think it was necessary for the national security of Ukraine to ban the importation of WWII Russian surplus bolt-action rifles?
Logged
Zanas
Zanas46
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,947
France


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: September 23, 2014, 05:18:52 AM »

Keep making threads like this, it makes finding people to ignore way easier !

Also : HAHAHAHAHA

Haha

Ha.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: September 23, 2014, 07:31:39 AM »

Setting aside the fact that the executive order was clearly not issued for the purpose of a gun ban, there's also the fact that there are multiple suppliers of AK-47 pattern weapons, not all of which are Russian, and the further fact that even if Russia were the sole source, there are plenty of other automatic and semi-automatic weapons of equivalent effectiveness available from a multitude of suppliers from many countries.  The idea that EO 13661 in either intent or effect has any impact on the ability of people to exercise their 2nd amendment rights is utter nonsense of the sort that can only be believed by those who don't ever bother to think at all on this issue, but proceed to reflexively duckspeak the views they hear from talk radio or the like.

Your argument is that the EO is not explicitly about gun control nor is it an effective form of gun control; therefore, it cannot be an anti-gun measure. Non sequitur?

Do you think the Obama administration understood what EO 13661 would do to the civilian arms market? Do you think it was necessary for the national security of Ukraine to ban the importation of WWII Russian surplus bolt-action rifles?

Do you think Obama would have had an easier time trying to convince European governments to impose sanctions on Russia if they could point out that he hadn't even stopped importing weapons from Russia?
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: September 23, 2014, 08:43:38 AM »

Do you think Obama would have had an easier time trying to convince European governments to impose sanctions on Russia if they could point out that he hadn't even stopped importing weapons from Russia?

I'm not sure, since he didn't include arms manufacturers in the original EO 13660. Instead, they were added as an apparent afterthought in EO 13661.

You should read 13661, and then you can decide for yourself whether or not the gun ban is conspicuously unrelated to the rest of the order.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: September 23, 2014, 09:05:18 AM »

Having read EO 13660 and EO 13661, could you please just point out the parts of them that you think amount to gun bans?
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: September 23, 2014, 10:51:07 AM »

Having read EO 13660 and EO 13661, could you please just point out the parts of them that you think amount to gun bans?

It's as plain as day in Section 1 (a)(ii)(B). Furthermore, this is not my opinion. Russian-manufactured firearms are no longer permitted for import.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: September 23, 2014, 11:17:43 AM »

To be clear, you're talking about this:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right? You're saying that language is a gun ban as plain as day?
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: September 23, 2014, 11:33:44 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Plain as day. Freeze the US assets and US commercial endeavors for all government officials of the Russian Federation and agents operating on their behalf.

PS - ban all arms importation, not just defense material.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: September 23, 2014, 11:42:32 AM »

So we should be supporting the Russian arms industry?
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: September 23, 2014, 12:18:49 PM »

So we should be supporting the Russian arms industry?

The location of the factory is a circumstantial detail demanded by US firearms consumers who want their AK pattern firearms to be manufactured in Russia. The guns are designed to comply with US regulations, and many are converted to fire American-made NATO ammunition (exception: AK-47 pattern). The guns are also customized with American parts. The relation to these guns to the Russian defense industry is quite weak, hence the exclusion of civilian firearms from the original EO.

I don't particularly care for tactical semi-automatic rifles, but for the people who love them, this was a shameless gun grab. Objectively speaking, it's difficult to find a legitimate justification.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: September 23, 2014, 12:29:14 PM »

This is getting kind of silly, and proving the point I was trying to make in the first place. Unabashed gun nuts will claim that anything is a gun grab, even an executive order putting financial pressure on an autocratic regime invading another country. Insane.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: September 23, 2014, 12:34:02 PM »

This is getting kind of silly, and proving the point I was trying to make in the first place. Unabashed gun nuts will claim that anything is a gun grab, even an executive order putting financial pressure on an autocratic regime invading another country. Insane.

The EO is clear. The inclusion of arms manufacturers is conspicuous. I've explained why these Russian firearms are not closely-related (if at all) to the Russian defense industry or to the tribulations in Ukraine.

You're not doing your side any favors.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: September 23, 2014, 12:46:01 PM »

This is getting kind of silly, and proving the point I was trying to make in the first place. Unabashed gun nuts will claim that anything is a gun grab, even an executive order putting financial pressure on an autocratic regime invading another country. Insane.

The EO is clear. The inclusion of arms manufacturers is conspicuous. I've explained why these Russian firearms are not closely-related (if at all) to the Russian defense industry or to the tribulations in Ukraine.

You're not doing your side any favors.

They didn't ban any guns though.  They put specific Russian corporations including arms manufacturers on the OFAC list. 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 13 queries.