Gabby Giffords Husband Espied Purchasing an AR 15

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krakatoa
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Another straw-man is thrown into the discussion. Machine guns? Really, Unless you are licensed to own a fully-automatic weapon, you cannot legally own a "machine gun". But then, you knew that, and are just trolling now because you may not have a real answer here.

Sad, really... Sorry.


This was answered here, if you actually read it ColoradoJens. If so, you are trolling everyone now. Please stop, or I will have to alert the forum Mods. If you want to have an intelligent debate, that's fine.




posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


What does the 2nd Amendment say on this?
Regardless of my personal beliefs, they don't overrule what the Constitution states

Do it the correct way if it is to be changed.


Ok, so you won't divulge your personal beliefs. But you do agree with altering the 2nd amendment if it is done "correctly."

CJ



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krakatoa

Originally posted by Krakatoa
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Another straw-man is thrown into the discussion. Machine guns? Really, Unless you are licensed to own a fully-automatic weapon, you cannot legally own a "machine gun". But then, you knew that, and are just trolling now because you may not have a real answer here.

Sad, really... Sorry.


This was answered here, if you actually read it ColoradoJens. If so, you are trolling everyone now. Please stop, or I will have to alert the forum Mods. If you want to have an intelligent debate, that's fine.


So macman is wrong?

CJ



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


You can own one. Go through the process of obtaining a tax stamp and register it.
The manufacturing of new full auto firearms, and then selling them to the public has been deemed (Unconstitutionally) as illegal.

But, go and get a Class 3 FFL, and you can get one as a Demo model.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


My beliefs are just that. MINE.
They really have nothing to do with this as they don't change the Constitution.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Knob Creek Machine Gun Night Shoot

www.youtube.com...
edit on 12-3-2013 by coltcall because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
This is America, after all...

Shooting the Biggest Guns Money Can Buy | The Big Sandy Shoot
www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
 


No the majority does not. Just the liberal media and a handful and anti-gun groups.


"Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?"

Support: 51%
Oppose: 42%
Not Sure: 7%

"Do you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?"

Support: 54%
Oppose: 41%
Not Sure: 6%

www.pollingreport.com...

Is this where you double down on the far right's claim that numbers lie? Addition and subtraction is a liberal conspiracy? The last Presidential election didn't convince the zealots that math works?
edit on 12-3-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Full disclosure please. Here are the polling stats stated on that polling site where you got those numbers:

Quinnipiac University. Feb. 27-March 4, 2013. N=1,944 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.2.

So, the view is fairly even then, if you factor in the margin of error +/- 2%

And this was a poll of only 1944 registered voters, out of how many voters in the United States total? Sound to me like a VERY small sample size, out of an approximate 150,000,000 voters. If my math is correct (and please correct me if I am wrong), that is approx 0.00001 % of the voting public.

I wouldn't put much stock in a sample size like that myself, let alone post it to the Internet as a valid data point.


If you want 2012 numbers gathered by an independent non-us source, it's closer to 170,000,000 voters.

Guardian.uk page with link to spreadsheet
Direct Link to 2012 voter spreadsheet
edit on 12-3-2013 by Krakatoa because: Corrected the math
edit on 12-3-2013 by Krakatoa because: Added source links for voter data



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Originally posted by Krakatoa


Full disclosure please. Here are the polling stats stated on that polling site where you got those numbers:

Quinnipiac University. Feb. 27-March 4, 2013. N=1,944 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.2.

So, the view is fairly even then, if you factor in the margin of error +/- 2%

And this was a poll of only 1944 registered voters, out of how many voters in the United States total? Sound to me like a VERY small sample size, out of an approximate 150,000,000 voters. If my math is correct (and please correct me if I am wrong), that is approx 0.00001 % of the voting public.

I wouldn't put much stock in a sample size like that myself, let alone post it to the Internet as a valid data point.




Nothing extra needs to be stated.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krakatoa

Is it the way it looks/form?
Is it the color?
Is it the caliber?
Is it full-automatic?
Is it the speed at which you can fire and reload?
Is it the available magazine size (number of rounds in the queue)?

So far, I have not seen a single common and agreed upon set of requirements that everyone agrees upon that defines this new phrase "military style assault weapon". There have been attempts made in some proposed legislation, however, they are all (as far as I can determine) related to the look/form of the stock and barrel (i.e. bayonet lug).


Hmmm. Have you looked at past and present legislation? AW classified as "appearance"...that is your claim? Not "utility"?

Let's acknowledge the reality that certain guns are better suited for combat situations than other guns? That gun manufacturers design weapons for military use and that those weapons differ from guns they design for hunting purposes or skeet shooting..OK? Now ask the question what features and design qualities make those weapons designed for military use better suited for combat applications, and what outcomes do those features impact ....and amongst weapons available for civilian purchase, how many of those features or design qualities are incorporated into civilian weapons, and do they make a difference...This is not rocket science, but it does require both sides to engage in logical discussion absent idealogical extremes.


Originally posted by Krakatoa

Please, I really would like to know what physically defines this term.


I'll treat this question as sincere rather than rhetorical?

Lets take a look at Conn.


(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at lease two of the following:

(i) A folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) A bayonet mount;
(iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) A grenade launcher; or


www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/assault_weapons.pdf

Please read it carefully...Not ANY of those qualities qualify it, but a combination.




Originally posted by Krakatoa

Also, I am really surprised they are not addressing the hand gun issue, since that is the form of weapon she was injured by at the time. That puzzles me too....the focus of their effort is on something that was not used in their case.


I have a hard time believing you are following the issue at all? Because this statement seems to lack the basic knowledge of the issue or the Gifford's stance on the issue.

BACKGROUND CHECKS...UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS for people purchasing handguns.



Giffords aids push for Wash. background checks

Former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords joined an intense lobbying effort Monday in Washington state, encouraging lawmakers to support a bill that would expand background checks to private gun sales

seattletimes.com...


"The killer from the Tucson shooting suffered from severe mental illness, but even after being deemed unqualified for military service in the Army and expulsion from a community college, he was never reported to mental health services," Kelly said, noting that the shooter passed a gun background check. "When dangerous people get guns we are all vulnerable; at church, conducting our daily business, and time after time, at schools and in classes. ...Our leaders should not look toward special interests and ideology but toward compromise."

www.denverpost.com...
edit on 12-3-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krakatoa
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Full disclosure please. Here are the polling stats stated on that polling site where you got those numbers:

Quinnipiac University. Feb. 27-March 4, 2013. N=1,944 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.2.

So, the view is fairly even then, if you factor in the margin of error +/- 2%

And this was a poll of only 1944 registered voters, out of how many voters in the United States total? Sound to me like a VERY small sample size, out of an approximate 150,000,000 voters. If my math is correct (and please correct me if I am wrong), that is approx 0.00001 % of the voting public.

I wouldn't put much stock in a sample size like that myself, let alone post it to the Internet as a valid data point.



Please...I gave ONE poll out of dozens that all show the same thing.....

Gallup:
Re-Instate the AW Ban : 60 for, 35 opposed
Americans Back Obama's Proposals to Address Gun Violence
www.gallup.com...

See here...Gallup, Pew Research, Public Religion Research Institute, CNN/Time, NBC/Wall Street Journal, Fox News, ABC/Washington Post, AP-GFK, and CBS/New York Times.

Scroll down through ALL the Polls...
www.pollingreport.com...

PLEASE...you are entitled to your opinion and to make a case for that opinion, despite what the public at large might think...But BS doesn't help...and it didn't help with the GOP last election...Singular polls can be wrong...but when dozens of independant polls have the same result it is a different scenario. The reality disconnect hurts what could be an otherwise valid argument, not helps. When people see outright denial of reality...they stop listening...the speakers credibility is ruined.
edit on 12-3-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 





So is it or isn't it legal to own a machine gun?


Legal to own in states that aren't fascist.

Even that evil mini gun:

www.everydaynodaysoff.com...

Of course only the rich folk can afford the thousands of dollars for machine guns, and min guns the poor folks can't afford them.

edit on 12-3-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Mark Kelly saw the AR 15, was totally shocked that there was one available for sale in the gun store, so he grabbed it before someone else came into the shop and walked out with the baby.

It's amazing that Mark Kelly found a gun shop that still had weapons on the shelves for sale. Everybody's buying up the guns and ammo faster than you can fly a kite in a lightning storm.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Yes . . . and all of those qualities are cosmetic and do not make the gun any more lethal . . .

Add that to the fact that they account for about 0.6% or all gun related crime since the Clinton AWB was lifted and what do you get . . . a boogey man that has nothing to do with reducing gun violence/crime or getting at the actual causes of gun violence/crime.

Ridiculous and dishonest propaganda . . . Just like the hypocrites in Tucson named the Giffords.

Once again . . . please dispute anything in this presentation.
Assault Weapons?



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


And where exactly are they conducting these polls . . . what are the qualifying questions . . . which responses are they excluding or not allowing?

It works both ways, btw, pro-gun surveys will use the same tactics.

I've been asked three times to "participate" in polls . . once at a gun show, once at the mall, and once on the phone.

The gun show didn't take my responses because after asking if I was registered voter, asked if I considered myself "liberal or conservative" I said "liberal" (as I'm a Libertarian) . . . they ended the poll. My friend said they weren't registered . . . no poll.

The mall asked same initial "registered" ques, followed by "Do you vote Dem or Reb" . . . I said "independent". Asked if I was "registered Dem" and I said "independent" . . . no poll.

Phone call to private unlisted number . . . "regisered voter". Consider myself "liberal or conservative", said "liberal" . . . asked if I support bans, background checks, etc . . . I said "no" to all and and after almost every question poller said "really . . . you're a liberal?".

They poll who they want . . . where they want . . . and make sure they get the answers they want. Anyone judging the validity of what is best for America on polls should definitely be on the "mentally unable to purchase a firearm list".

But, hey . . . just like polls . . . it's just my opinion. And isn't that what makes this country great? We legislate constitutional matters not on reason and logic, but opinions of people with the lowest Ed standards of any modern-Western nation . . . . Walter Lippmann, Edward Bernays, and Josef Goebbels are smiling.
edit on 3/12/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Yes . . . and all of those qualities are cosmetic and do not make the gun any more lethal . . .


"Cosmetics"...Funny...then why sell them? Are gun owners so interested in how "pretty" thier gun is?
Gun owners should have no issue with an AWB ban then? It is only cosmetic right?

And gun manufacturers should stop selling civilians and the military on the idea that certain weapons afford any advantage for combat scenarios.

Do you have any clue how ...independant of any position...completely unhinged from logic that avenue of logic is?


Originally posted by solomons path
Add that to the fact that they account for about 0.6% or all gun related crime since the Clinton AWB was lifted and what do you get . . .


"Gun related crime"?....How about mass shootings? Mass shootings...Even when we are generous and define it as only 4 or more victims....over half the shooters ahd high capacity magazines or assualt rifles or both.



Ridiculous and dishonest propaganda . .


Certainly ....the NRA has lost a lot of credibility as of late.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by Indigo5
 


And where exactly are they conducting these polls . . . what are the qualifying questions . . . which responses are they excluding or not allowing?

It works both ways, btw, pro-gun surveys will use the same tactics.


Wow...it is like last years election remix. These aren't "anti" or "pro" gun surveys...they are polls...by dozens of sources...all saying the same thing...

Gallup, Pew Research, Public Religion Research Institute, CNN/Time, NBC/Wall Street Journal, Fox News, ABC/Washington Post, AP-GFK, and CBS/New York Times.
edit on 12-3-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Yes . . . and all of those qualities are cosmetic and do not make the gun any more lethal . . .


"Cosmetics"...Funny...then why sell them? Are gun owners so interested in how "pretty" thier gun is?
Gun owners should have no issue with an AWB ban then? It is only cosmetic right?

And gun manufacturers should stop selling civilians and the military on the idea that certain weapons afford any advantage for combat scenarios.

Do you have any clue how ...independant of any position...completely unhinged from logic that avenue of logic is?


Originally posted by solomons path
Add that to the fact that they account for about 0.6% or all gun related crime since the Clinton AWB was lifted and what do you get . . .


"Gun related crime"?....How about mass shootings? Mass shootings...Even when we are generous and define it as only 4 or more victims....over half the shooters ahd high capacity magazines or assualt rifles or both.



Ridiculous and dishonest propaganda . .


Certainly ....the NRA has lost a lot of credibility as of late.


Yes . . . that is why. They are "legos" for adults . . . they like to "trick them out with accessories". They also do well in competitions because there is very little recoil. And, I'm sure some people like to "Army" or Zombie Killer" while at the range. They are great choices for women because of ease of use and low caliber.

Civilians and the Military don't use the same weapon (again they just look the same, functionality is different) and it has nothing to do with the manufacturer . . . BTW, do you think the Military takes the word of gun manufacturers on what is "best for them" . . . Really? BTW also, it is the style of the rifle that "affords" an advantage (shorter barrel, light weight, reliablity in harsh conditions, etc . . . but, again Military grade is not civilian) And, you and your ignorance of firearms are the only thing lacking logic here.

So . . . 143 shooting with 4 or more (thanks mother jones) over the last 20 years and about 60 involved hi-cap or the mythical "assault weapon". Are you claiming that these crimes wouldn't have happened without them? What about the 83 that didn't use them? Were the weapons used the cause of these tragedies? I'll let you ask Piers Morgan what baseless stat to throw out next . . . Again, Lippmann is smiling!

I don't support the NRA, so not really concerned with what they do or say . . . try again.

Very condesceding tone for someone that obviously doesn't know firarms . . . tsk, tsk.

edit on 3/12/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


If you are a fan a manufactured consent and think the world revolves around public opinion, and not logic and reason . . . by all means keep up the propaganda machine.

It works on the majority of Americans . . . question is did it work on you? Or are you one of the manufacturers?

Have anything that deals in reason or are all of your arguments based on stats and polls? I also noticed you didn't respond or try to deny any of the link I provided, which disputes all of this with . . . counter stats and actual quotes from our dear leaders on how to use those stats and scary images.
edit on 3/12/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join