+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 16 First ... 45678910 ... Last
Like Tree156Likes

Thread: The Gun Control Debate.......Anybody else seeing this trend?

  1. #151
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    According to both of you, magazine capacity is not an issue to the one doing the shooting because magazine changing takes less than a second with practice and defined muscle memory.

    Yet both of you now state it is important for soldiers or LEO's in a firefight with individuals possessing larger capacity magazines.

    Both of you have put yourself in a corner based upon your own writings.

    Either magazine capacity doesn't matter because of the ability to change out rapidly or those seconds count in not having to change out with a larger capacity. Which is it? I can't answer why no one jumped one of the Columbine shooters. I do know that rushing a shooter has occurred in several other instances and we don't know how many potential victims were able to run away while they were changing magazines. Since that is your standard, do you believe military personnel are better or less trained than the Columbine shooters?

    If a gunman mowing down theater goers or school children has to change out every 10 rounds instead of every 30, that is an advantage to potential victims to take some type of defensive action or try to run away.

    I appreciate you walking right into that one.

    To paraphrase my favorite line from the 2012 Presidential debates:

    "Please proceed gentlemen."
    So you are going to take 2 completely different scenarios, military v. civilian and sew together a point on magazines?
    Frankly I'm surprised you would use such a tactic, it's well beneath you.

    Military-large capacity is a mater of life and death when you have a skilled advisory engaged. I'll add a technical point, it for the most part is for man to man killing, it's for suppressing fire for cover or movement. PS fwiw-I had 20 round magazines in my M14 while in the gulf.
    Civilian-large capacity magazines, legal, maybe cheesy, but fun. Have yet to be statistically proven to be a factor in any of the mass shootings.
    Hope this spells my thought on magazines out for you.
    Chenzo likes this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  2. #152
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    So you are going to take 2 completely different scenarios, military v. civilian and sew together a point on magazines?
    Frankly I'm surprised you would use such a tactic, it's well beneath you.

    Military-large capacity is a mater of life and death when you have a skilled advisory engaged. I'll add a technical point, it for the most part is for man to man killing, it's for suppressing fire for cover or movement. PS fwiw-I had 20 round magazines in my M14 while in the gulf.
    Civilian-large capacity magazines, legal, maybe cheesy, but fun. Have yet to be statistically proven to be a factor in any of the mass shootings.
    Hope this spells my thought on magazines out for you.
    Magazine capacity is important in both scenarios for the same reason.

    Having a large capacity (I define as >10 rounds) enables the soldier to go longer in between having to change magazines when in a firefight against similarly armed opponents.

    In a mass shooting where the shooter has to change out magazines, those same seconds can be the difference between being able to rush the shooter (as has been done on at least two occasions) or run away to safety (who knows how many times).

    Those seconds count when one is in a fight for one's life.

    According to both of you, those seconds matter for a soldier, but don't matter for a potential victim.

    Either those seconds matter or they don't.

    Which is it?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #153
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    There most definitely are logical reasons to ban these types of weapons from private ownership. Hunting and self-defense are probably the two main reasons for gun ownership and these types of weapons are simply not essential to those purposes. We can disagree on this, but this is certainly more logical than the "because I want one" argument.
    The .223 round is a very popular varmint hunting round. The AR15 is a very popular varmint hunting gun.

    Furthermore, in a "free" country, I want one is more than enough of a reason. Especially when there is an amendment to the founding document of this country that says I can own one.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  4. #154
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    If that is the case, why does the military and law enforcement all use 30 round magazines?
    Because it's the standard capacity, standard issue magazine with such a firearm. Not a "high capacity" magazine.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  5. #155
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Magazine capacity is important in both scenarios for the same reason.

    Having a large capacity (I define as >10 rounds) enables the soldier to go longer in between having to change magazines when in a firefight against similarly armed opponents.

    In a mass shooting where the shooter has to change out magazines, those same seconds can be the difference between being able to rush the shooter (as has been done on at least two occasions) or run away to safety (who knows how many times).

    Those seconds count when one is in a fight for one's life.

    According to both of you, those seconds matter for a soldier, but don't matter for a potential victim.

    Either those seconds matter or they don't.

    Which is it?
    You would have a valid point if, and its a big if, you could find any data that proves a "high capacity" magazine had any factor or played any roll in any mass shooting. Until then, its nothing more then lip service.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  6. #156
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Magazine capacity is important in both scenarios for the same reason.

    Having a large capacity (I define as >10 rounds) enables the soldier to go longer in between having to change magazines when in a firefight against similarly armed opponents.

    In a mass shooting where the shooter has to change out magazines, those same seconds can be the difference between being able to rush the shooter (as has been done on at least two occasions) or run away to safety (who knows how many times).

    Those seconds count when one is in a fight for one's life.

    According to both of you, those seconds matter for a soldier, but don't matter for a potential victim.

    Either those seconds matter or they don't.

    Which is it?
    Here, I can slow this point down for you even better than Fyred and SPFD did.

    I found this on another site, regarding limiting magazine capacity. The explanation doesn't get any simpler than this:

    "If a criminal is shooting back at you, then hell yes a limited magazine capacity diminishes your chance of successful self-defense.

    If you are a nut-job shooting 6-year olds, with nobody around to shoot back, then swapping out mags is hardly an inconvenience."

    Do you get it now? Or do you need pictures too?
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  7. #157
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Here, I can slow this point down for you even better than Fyred and SPFD did.

    I found this on another site, regarding limiting magazine capacity. The explanation doesn't get any simpler than this:

    "If a criminal is shooting back at you, then hell yes a limited magazine capacity diminishes your chance of successful self-defense.

    If you are a nut-job shooting 6-year olds, with nobody around to shoot back, then swapping out mags is hardly an inconvenience."

    Do you get it now? Or do you need pictures too?
    Seconds count in both cases. Those seconds count for the potential victim as well. Maybe the six year old or adult has the wherewithal to duck around the corner so as not to be in the direct of line of fire of the shooter. This is a critical and relevant scenario until they create bullets that can magically go around corners or over obstacles in their path. Or duck into a closet and barricade the door. There are any number of possibilities that are possible in that type of close quarter scenario. I spoke to WW II vets who fought in the ETO using that exact tactic of ducking around a corner to avoid being shot by the enemy. So I know it's possible.

    You do understand that bullets don't curve around corners inside structures, do you? I can easily draw a diagram that details how vectors work and their application to ballistics.

    Do I need a visual aid for you as well? Or should I get you a picture?

    I'm willing to give potential victims every opportunity to avoid that fate. You believe there is only one possible outcome. I guess we have different ideas of what the term "seconds count" means.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Furthermore, in a "free" country, I want one is more than enough of a reason. Especially when there is an amendment to the founding document of this country that says I can own one.
    Once again. The SCOTUS has opined that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute. There have been laws passed that prohibit ownership of certain types of weapons.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-22-2013 at 05:30 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #158
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    The .223 round is a very popular varmint hunting round. The AR15 is a very popular varmint hunting gun.
    Is it the only gun that can be used for that purpose?

    Furthermore, in a "free" country, I want one is more than enough of a reason. Especially when there is an amendment to the founding document of this country that says I can own one.
    It may be enough of a reason to go buy one today, but when the discussion is about whether or not it should be available to buy tomorrow, you should probably have an argument that is more substantial.

    Regardless, that amendment only affords you the opportunity to own that particular gun if it's legally available for sale to the public.

  9. #159
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Is it the only gun that can be used for that purpose?


    It may be enough of a reason to go buy one today, but when the discussion is about whether or not it should be available to buy tomorrow, you should probably have an argument that is more substantial.

    Regardless, that amendment only affords you the opportunity to own that particular gun if it's legally available for sale to the public.
    I get it, you are anti-gun/anti 2nd amendment.
    Say for the sake of argument, a new AWB is passed much like the Clinton era version, which by the way was a complete and utter failure, what makes you think all of a sudden criminals will now follow the law?
    Is it because there is a liberal in the white house and he says so?
    You have yet to put any solid evidence, facts or data to back up any statement you have made.
    Chenzo likes this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  10. #160
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,108

    Default

    Originally Posted by FireMedic049

    Exactly, it doesn't. So passing a law that says you can't buy an AR-15 is not taking any right away from you unless AR-15s are the only guns on the market.

    You are in favor of eliminating a inanimate object because a statistical microblip of incidents include the use of that weapon. Yet you oppose limiting the use of cars because many more thousands a year are killed by drunk drivers. Interesting bit of hypocrisy on your part.

    And yes it is restricting my rights you are just too blinded to see it



    Right, reducing the number of guns available that could easily be used in illegal guns sales is just "feel good nonsense".

    No, the fact that you actually believe that your ridiculous plan of restricting access to a particular rifle to law abiding guns owner will make one bit of difference is the "feel good nonsense".

    I'm sure you'll respond to this with a rant about semantics, but I'll say it anyway. You assumed that the intent of what I stated was to stop illegal gun sales as in ALL gun sales. I'm not foolish enough to think that any illegal activity can be fully stopped. As such, the goal would not be to eliminate ALL illegal sales, but rather reduce them. I admit that I would support the restricting of ALL citizens from privately owning specific types of weapons. However, I did not say that it would "essentially do NOTHING to stop the flow of illegal guns into the hands of criminals". That was purely your assertion because I was only discussing a segment of firearms currently available. I'm simply saying that it would stop some illegal gun sales of these particular weapons. That is certainly more than just NOTHING.

    All your plan will do is create a black market for those weapons and turn SOME previously law abiding citizens into criminals, and further, do NOTHING to stop the flow of those weapons to the hard core criminal element.

    Ever hear of prohibition? It didn't work either.


    If I'm a brainwashed anti-gunner, then you've clearly been brainwashed by the gun lobby.

    No, the difference is I can speak on the topic of firearms, firearms nomenclature, and to a greater extent than the anti-gun crowd, firearms law, with knowledge, experience, and facts. I don't need knee jerk, rambling, fed to me, talking points. I don't need to hide behind semantics when you and so many other anti-gunners can't even define the terms you throw around about guns properly and use made up words like assault weapon.

    Obama didn't directly spur that spike in sales. It was a direct result of people in the gun crowd making people think that Obama was going to come take their guns away. He never said he was going to that and it never happened. The same thing happened leading up to re-election. He didn't run on gun control and it wasn't on the short list of priorities for the second term until Sandy Hook happened. My grip is just fine thanks and I haven't been drinking the kool-aid. As I stated, I'm in the middle on this issue.

    The facts are senator feinstein has made no bones about wanting to end private citizens from owning firearms. Attorney general holder has said he believes we must brainwash people into thinking differently about guns. Apparently that means it is okay to illegally supply guns to Mexican drug cartels at the same time you want to disarm American citizens.

    Add to both of those president obama openly stating that if Congress desn't do what he thinks is needed for gun cntrol he will use executive orders to bypass the legislative process.

    No, I see your point, there is no way the democrats, led by obama, have had anything to do with turning people on the fence on the issue of private ownership of firearms into gun owners. Thank you Mr President for increasing the nuber of gun owners exponentially!!



    A lot in our world has changed since then.

    And not all change is good...


    I can't offer an explanation for what happened because I had nothing to do with it and have no idea what they were thinking. To think I would be able to explain that mess is absurd.

    Free your mind, the US government, led by president obama, illegally sold guns to Mexican drug cartels who then used those guns to murder 2 US law enforcement officials as well as many Mexican citizens, some chldren. But apparently we are giving obama and holder a free pass on that.

    No, you simply didn't understand what I said. I didn't say that it didn't matter where they came from. I said that regardless of how they were obtained, all guns originate from a manufacturer. Big difference. The gun that isn't manufactured is the gun that can't be illegally sold and used for a crime.

    Ah, I got it now, the government is not responsible for selling those guns ILLEGALLY to Mexican CRIMINALS, the firearms manufacturer is responsible because they produced the guns 100% legally. You do realize how completely phukked up that line of thinking is don't you? It is akin to blaming GM for manufacturing cars driven by drunk drivers that kill people. Completely illogical, stupid and baseless. But then again so is most of the anti-gun crowd rhetoric.

    Where did I even remotely indicate that I don't have a problem with the federal government supplying guns to criminals? Maybe you should put down your glass of kool-aid?

    You passed the blame to the gun manufacturer in your statement above.

    Right, because every elected official that expressed an extreme view or position on an issue has never been out voted by the majority of ones that don't share that same extreme position.

    That my delusional friend is called DEMOCRACY! The majority, elected by their consitituents and doing what they want, get their position moved forward.

    Who am I? I'm nobody to tell you that you can't own one. If your ability to own one changes, it won't because I decided it should be that way.

    But it will be because you, and more like you, believe you have the right to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens.



    Wasn't playing games. Just clarifying the definition in use.

    Oh you were playing games alright. Sorry we won't play the role of appeaser anymore. No more give a little and we will leave the rest alone lies.


    If you (as in the gun crowd) truly were hearing the message loud and clear, then you wouldn't be bitching about semantics and maybe you'd actually have a response other than yelling "2nd Amendment" and "because I want one".

    Semantics is EVERYTHING when you are proposing new rules, laws, or legislation. If you can't properly define it how can you regulate it?


    So then you admit that what you stated about blame wasn't true?

    No.

    Where's the flaw?

    Your assumption that law abiding citizens are breaking the law and illegally selling their legally purchased rifles.

    Truthfully, I have no hope of winning over the "pro-gun" side.

    Good, because like Don Quixote you would be tlting at windmills.

    It's really not the same thing. You are talking about actually restricting the person's ability to drive altogether rather than just restricting them from driving sports cars.

    Um, I didn't mention sports cars at all. I said restrict all non-drunk drivers from drivng as much.

    I agree with this, but I don't think that fully addresses the issue.

    It certainly does a better job than punishing the innocent, which is YOUR plan.

    No, that's just your biased interpretation. I'm in no way saying that the majority of gun owners are doing this, but it's clearly not an infrequent thing. If you want those statistics, then go look them up for yourself.

    You clearly, and plainly, said stopping law abiding citizens from being able to purchase that gun stops the from being sold illegally.

    No, I'm not saying that at all, which is probably why it's clear as mud for you. I'm essentially disputing whether or not a particular firearm should be legal to be purchased and owned by a private citizen.

    So you admit you want to restrict my rights. Now that is crystal clear.


    Just because you don't like my ideas doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be discussed. Again, it's your assertion that I'm saying

    Here is your idea. Restrict law abiding citizens from owning a type of firearm that when legally purchased and owned is used in a miniscule amount of crimes. Sorry NO, I don't wish to discuss your idea when you essentially say mine won't work when in fact it deals with criminals and the mentally ill.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 01-22-2013 at 11:38 PM.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  11. #161
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Free your mind, the US government, led by president obama, illegally sold guns to Mexican drug cartels who then used those guns to murder 2 US law enforcement officials as well as many Mexican citizens, some chldren. But apparently we are giving obama and holder a free pass on that.
    A similar program was executed under the previous administration. Once again conservatives reveal their double standard with manufactured outrage.

    What really matters is how many gun control laws this administration has enacted during its tenure. Can you give us that number?

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    That my delusional friend is called DEMOCRACY! The majority, elected by their consitituents and doing what they want, get their position moved forward.
    Exactly. Yet you only seem to believe in DEMOCRACY when it suits you. Obama was elected by a clear majority, as were the senate. The GOP holds on to the House by virtue of admitted gerrymandering. In one of the few times in American history, the party whose candidates received the most votes is in the minority.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  12. #162
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    I get it, you are anti-gun/anti 2nd amendment.
    If that's what you think, then you really don't get it. I am not "anti-gun/anti 2nd amendment". I really don't have a problem with gun ownership. I really don't have a problem with the 2nd amendment itself.

    I simply disagree with some people's interpretations of the 2nd amendment and don't believe that certain types of weapons are appropriate for civilian ownership.


    Say for the sake of argument, a new AWB is passed much like the Clinton era version, which by the way was a complete and utter failure, what makes you think all of a sudden criminals will now follow the law?

    Is it because there is a liberal in the white house and he says so?
    You have yet to put any solid evidence, facts or data to back up any statement you have made.
    Nothing makes me think that criminals will suddenly start following the laws. I support the general concept of an AWB for the reason I just listed above, not because I think it'll guarantee criminals won't get their hands on them. Additionally, as I've pretty much stated before, an AWB would only be one part of addressing the problems related to guns in this country.

    Even with an AWB, there are plenty of other types of guns that criminals can get their hands on and use in the commission of crimes. The best we can probably do is to try things to limit or hinder their ability to get guns and aggressively punish those who have committed crimes using or in possession of a firearm.

  13. #163
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,273

    Default

    Originally Posted by SPFDRum
    I get it, you are anti-gun/anti 2nd amendment.
    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    If that's what you think, then you really don't get it. I am not "anti-gun/anti 2nd amendment". I really don't have a problem with gun ownership. I really don't have a problem with the 2nd amendment itself.

    I simply disagree with some people's interpretations of the 2nd amendment and don't believe that certain types of weapons are appropriate for civilian ownership.
    FireMedic049, this is one of the reasons I left the other thread. Those who disagreed with them immediately turn the argument into what is called a false dichotomy.

    It is similar to the type of argument used during the war in Iraq. If one didn't support the war one was accused of either not supporting the troops, or worse supporting the terrorists/enemy. Never mind that Iraq never attacked the US nor posed a threat to the US.

    I've stated repeatedly that I have no problem with gun ownership either. In fact I have no problem with the ownership of semi-auto weapons. I've only submitted that magazine capacity be limited to 10 rounds (since I believe that seconds do indeed count in that type of scenario) and the secondary gun market (aka gun shows) be eliminated.

    For that I have been labeled completely anti-gun/anti 2nd amendment.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-23-2013 at 12:02 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #164
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    If that's what you think, then you really don't get it. I am not "anti-gun/anti 2nd amendment". I really don't have a problem with gun ownership. I really don't have a problem with the 2nd amendment itself.

    I simply disagree with some people's interpretations of the 2nd amendment and don't believe that certain types of weapons are appropriate for civilian ownership.



    Nothing makes me think that criminals will suddenly start following the laws. I support the general concept of an AWB for the reason I just listed above, not because I think it'll guarantee criminals won't get their hands on them. Additionally, as I've pretty much stated before, an AWB would only be one part of addressing the problems related to guns in this country.

    Even with an AWB, there are plenty of other types of guns that criminals can get their hands on and use in the commission of crimes. The best we can probably do is to try things to limit or hinder their ability to get guns and aggressively punish those who have committed crimes using or in possession of a firearm.
    I get it, because YOU think it will now make a difference, it miraculously will. I sure wish you would have come out and just stated that from the beginning, I woukdn't have spent as much time finding all those facts
    and data to prove you wrong.
    I will admit though SC, your statement of "false decotomy" cracks me up. Especially in light if the mere fact you have yet to produce any evidence that any sort or ban or restrictions have proven effective.
    Last edited by SPFDRum; 01-23-2013 at 11:25 AM.
    Chenzo likes this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  15. #165
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    If either one of you, SC or 49 where interested in an honest debate, you would have, at the minimum comment on my quick proposal; "No magazines shall be used that significantly alter the appearance of the fire arm for the purpose of increased bullet capacity".
    Nothing, Nada, zip, all the more evidence you are not open for a logical discussion, but only here to spew anti-gun rhetoric.
    Chenzo likes this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  16. #166
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    If either one of you, SC or 49 where interested in an honest debate, you would have, at the minimum comment on my quick proposal; "No magazines shall be used that significantly alter the appearance of the fire arm for the purpose of increased bullet capacity".
    Nothing, Nada, zip, all the more evidence you are not open for a logical discussion, but only here to spew anti-gun rhetoric.
    The appearance of the weapon is not significant. Capacity is the issue. Your point was not relevant. Hence the reason for not commenting.

    Semi-auto weapons function just as well with a one shot magazine (plus one in the chamber) as they do with a 100 round (or larger if spring strength allows) magazine.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #167
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The appearance of the weapon is not significant. Capacity is the issue. Your point was not relevant. Hence the reason for not commenting.
    Appearance is not significant? Now that's funny!!! If that's the case, why the push to ban "assault" style fire arms? They function just like every other semi automatic fire arm. That only leaves one thing, appearance.
    Semi-auto weapons function just as well with a one shot magazine (plus one in the chamber) as they do with a 100 round (or larger if spring strength allows) magazine.
    So then it must be you wish to ban all semi-auto fire arms.
    FyredUp and Chenzo like this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  18. #168
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    A similar program was executed under the previous administration. Once again conservatives reveal their double standard with manufactured outrage.

    It was wrong then, if it happened, and still wrong now. The difference is the out and out hypocrisy of demanding stricter gun control on US citizens while freely selling guns to criminals.

    What really matters is how many gun control laws this administration has enacted during its tenure. Can you give us that number?

    I can tell you that the greatest issue with obama's gun control plans is his threat to use executive orders to bybass the elected Congress to enact his gun control policies.


    Exactly. Yet you only seem to believe in DEMOCRACY when it suits you. Obama was elected by a clear majority, as were the senate. The GOP holds on to the House by virtue of admitted gerrymandering. In one of the few times in American history, the party whose candidates received the most votes is in the minority.

    7% is hardly a mandate. The problem with gerrymandering is it is nothing more than a political game. The problem comes in when your side gets beat out in this game, because both sides do it.
    The problem with any of this is it is all political games.
    Chenzo likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  19. #169
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Originally Posted by FireMedic049
    Exactly, it doesn't. So passing a law that says you can't buy an AR-15 is not taking any right away from you unless AR-15s are the only guns on the market.

    You are in favor of eliminating a inanimate object because a statistical microblip of incidents include the use of that weapon. Yet you oppose limiting the use of cars because many more thousands a year are killed by drunk drivers. Interesting bit of hypocrisy on your part.
    And yes it is restricting my rights you are just too blinded to see it
    Your assessment of why I support the general concept of an AWB is not correct. See my reply above regarding that. Based on that, there's no hypocrisy on my part.

    I'm sure you'll respond to this with a rant about semantics, but I'll say it anyway. You assumed that the intent of what I stated was to stop illegal gun sales as in ALL gun sales. I'm not foolish enough to think that any illegal activity can be fully stopped. As such, the goal would not be to eliminate ALL illegal sales, but rather reduce them. I admit that I would support the restricting of ALL citizens from privately owning specific types of weapons. However, I did not say that it would "essentially do NOTHING to stop the flow of illegal guns into the hands of criminals". That was purely your assertion because I was only discussing a segment of firearms currently available. I'm simply saying that it would stop some illegal gun sales of these particular weapons. That is certainly more than just NOTHING.

    All your plan will do is create a black market for those weapons and turn SOME previously law abiding citizens into criminals, and further, do NOTHING to stop the flow of those weapons to the hard core criminal element.
    Ever hear of prohibition? It didn't work either.
    Maybe, but doing NOTHING, which appears to be your position, will definitely not improve the situation.

    If I'm a brainwashed anti-gunner, then you've clearly been brainwashed by the gun lobby.

    No, the difference is I can speak on the topic of firearms, firearms nomenclature, and to a greater extent than the anti-gun crowd, firearms law, with knowledge, experience, and facts. I don't need knee jerk, rambling, fed to me, talking points. I don't need to hide behind semantics when you and so many other anti-gunners can't even define the terms you throw around about guns properly and use made up words like assault weapon.
    Hiding behind semantics is exactly what you are doing when you cite it as reason to not discuss the issue at all.

    The facts are senator feinstein has made no bones about wanting to end private citizens from owning firearms. Attorney general holder has said he believes we must brainwash people into thinking differently about guns. Apparently that means it is okay to illegally supply guns to Mexican drug cartels at the same time you want to disarm American citizens.
    Yeah, she may want to do that, but it won't happen. She simply doesn't have the votes to make it go anywhere. I don't know about the brainwashing part, but I think we probably should look at how we view and think about guns. I think it's quite a leap to think these two people's comments say that F&F was OK.

    Add to both of those president obama openly stating that if Congress desn't do what he thinks is needed for gun cntrol he will use executive orders to bypass the legislative process.
    And he's openly stated that he'd do stuff related to other issues and didn't. Honestly, I don't have a problem with him making the "threat". Maybe that'll light a fire under congress to seriously address the issue? I'll reserve judgment on following thru on that threat if we get to that point.

    A lot in our world has changed since then.

    And not all change is good...
    Correct, but some change can be good even if we don't like it.


    I can't offer an explanation for what happened because I had nothing to do with it and have no idea what they were thinking. To think I would be able to explain that mess is absurd.

    Free your mind, the US government, led by president obama, illegally sold guns to Mexican drug cartels who then used those guns to murder 2 US law enforcement officials as well as many Mexican citizens, some chldren. But apparently we are giving obama and holder a free pass on that.
    My mind is just fine. Your beef over this particular issue is not with me and I haven't voiced any support for what happened.

    No, you simply didn't understand what I said. I didn't say that it didn't matter where they came from. I said that regardless of how they were obtained, all guns originate from a manufacturer. Big difference. The gun that isn't manufactured is the gun that can't be illegally sold and used for a crime.

    Ah, I got it now, the government is not responsible for selling those guns ILLEGALLY to Mexican CRIMINALS, the firearms manufacturer is responsible because they produced the guns 100% legally. You do realize how completely phukked up that line of thinking is don't you? It is akin to blaming GM for manufacturing cars driven by drunk drivers that kill people. Completely illogical, stupid and baseless. But then again so is most of the anti-gun crowd rhetoric.
    Yeah I realize that, but that's not my line of thinking. That's just your view. I'm not blaming the manufacturer. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to follow. All guns originally come from manufacturers. If production of the XYZ-3000 was halted, that would have an impact on the availability of the XYZ-3000 to those who sell guns illegally.

    Where did I even remotely indicate that I don't have a problem with the federal government supplying guns to criminals? Maybe you should put down your glass of kool-aid?

    You passed the blame to the gun manufacturer in your statement above.
    I did no such thing. That is exclusively your interpretation.

    Right, because every elected official that expressed an extreme view or position on an issue has never been out voted by the majority of ones that don't share that same extreme position.

    That my delusional friend is called DEMOCRACY! The majority, elected by their consitituents and doing what they want, get their position moved forward.
    I'm far from delusional and you pretty much hit on my point from a different direction. It's pretty clear to me that she doesn't have sufficient legislative support to get a full ban. To me, she's just putting on a good show.

    Who am I? I'm nobody to tell you that you can't own one. If your ability to own one changes, it won't because I decided it should be that way.

    But it will be because you, and more like you, believe you have the right to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens.
    I don't think it's my individual right to actually infringe upon your personal rights. However, I do have the right to advocate for a change in our laws and/or constitution that could (in the opinion of some people) have that effect.

    If you (as in the gun crowd) truly were hearing the message loud and clear, then you wouldn't be bitching about semantics and maybe you'd actually have a response other than yelling "2nd Amendment" and "because I want one".

    Semantics is EVERYTHING when you are proposing new rules, laws, or legislation. If you can't properly define it how can you regulate it?
    If you are actually presenting the legislation for consideration, then I would agree that specifics are extremely important. However, as I’ve stated several times now, if one person is saying “X” and the correct term is “Y”, but you both know that you are talking about “Z”, then there’s no reason to not have the conversation and include addressing the usage of the wrong term.


    Where's the flaw?

    Your assumption that law abiding citizens are breaking the law and illegally selling their legally purchased rifles.
    No, I was not referring to “law abiding citizens”. I was referring to people (whether criminals or law abiding citizens) purchasing firearms via legal channels and then selling them illegally.

    Truthfully, I have no hope of winning over the "pro-gun" side.

    Good, because like Don Quixote you would be tlting at windmills.
    Exactly because I’ve encountered very, very, very few “pro-gun” people who are willing to entertain the possibility of anything other than no restrictions regarding guns.

    It's really not the same thing. You are talking about actually restricting the person's ability to drive altogether rather than just restricting them from driving sports cars.

    Um, I didn't mention sports cars at all. I said restrict all non-drunk drivers from drivng as much.
    I know that you didn’t mention sports cars. Your comparison was flawed. We were talking about restricting use of a specific object – “assault weapons” – by all people. A person would still have access to other types of weapons. In other words, anybody can own a “traditional” hunting rifle, but not an AR-15. Your comparison was about restricting an action – driving motor vehicles – by a specific group of people. In other words, non-drunk drivers can drive, but not that much. The correct comparison to what I stated in car terms would be everyone is allowed own a sedan (that “traditional” hunting rifle), but not a sports car (the AR-15).

    No, that's just your biased interpretation. I'm in no way saying that the majority of gun owners are doing this, but it's clearly not an infrequent thing. If you want those statistics, then go look them up for yourself.

    You clearly, and plainly, said stopping law abiding citizens from being able to purchase that gun stops the from being sold illegally.
    No, I stated stopping all citizens from being able to legally purchase a specific weapon, would decrease the availability of said weapon for illegal resale – largely due to a decrease or halting of its production. This refers specifically to units of the specific weapon that haven’t been produced yet, not units that are already in circulation. You simply can’t resell the individual firearm that never existed.

    No, I'm not saying that at all, which is probably why it's clear as mud for you. I'm essentially disputing whether or not a particular firearm should be legal to be purchased and owned by a private citizen.

    So you admit you want to restrict my rights. Now that is crystal clear.
    No, as I stated, I’m disputing whether or not a particular firearm should be available to the private citizen. IMO, restricting the ability to purchase and/or own a specific firearm model is not a violation of your “rights” as you don’t actually have the “right” to own any specific model of firearm. You would still have the right to own firearms, just not certain ones.
    You disagree, but ultimately neither of us would be the ones making the determination if someone’s rights have been restricted.

    Just because you don't like my ideas doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be discussed. Again, it's your assertion that I'm saying

    Here is your idea. Restrict law abiding citizens from owning a type of firearm that when legally purchased and owned is used in a miniscule amount of crimes. Sorry NO, I don't wish to discuss your idea when you essentially say mine won't work when in fact it deals with criminals and the mentally ill.
    I don’t recall saying yours won’t work. I do recall saying that those are not the only 2 areas that we should be discussing to address the problem.
    Last edited by FireMedic049; 01-23-2013 at 04:52 PM.

  20. #170
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    If either one of you, SC or 49 where interested in an honest debate, you would have, at the minimum comment on my quick proposal; "No magazines shall be used that significantly alter the appearance of the fire arm for the purpose of increased bullet capacity".
    Nothing, Nada, zip, all the more evidence you are not open for a logical discussion, but only here to spew anti-gun rhetoric.
    Actually I did comment on it last night, but I don't see that post on here now for some reason. I did it from my Kindle rather than my computer, so maybe that was the problem.

    I overlooked responding to it initial, probably because nothing jumped out at me when I read it. Taking another look at it now, it seems kind of convoluted. The issue is magazine capacity, not if it would alter appearance of the weapon. What's wrong with just setting a numerical limit - other than not liking what that number is?

  21. #171
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Actually I did comment on it last night, but I don't see that post on here now for some reason. I did it from my Kindle rather than my computer, so maybe that was the problem.

    I overlooked responding to it initial, probably because nothing jumped out at me when I read it. Taking another look at it now, it seems kind of convoluted. The issue is magazine capacity, not if it would alter appearance of the weapon. What's wrong with just setting a numerical limit - other than not liking what that number is?
    My numerical limit-at minimum, what ever the police deem necessary for their protection. I, as a legal gun owner should at least have the ability to protect myself at the same level they do. The supreme court has ruled that peace officers have no duty to protect an individual, only society as a whole. So that leaves me that responsibility and I should be able to defend myself at that same level.
    Last edited by SPFDRum; 01-23-2013 at 05:47 PM.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  22. #172
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    So then it must be you wish to ban all semi-auto fire arms.
    Once again my comprehension challenged friend. I've never stated a desire to ban semi-auto firearms. I've only stated a desire to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds. I only stated the function of a semi-auto action is not dependent upon the capacity of a magazine. It is in fact dependent on having a live round to fire thereby initiating the action to perform its ejecting and reloading cycle.

    Whether the magazine looks like a banana, pretzel, or a Jackson Pollock painting has no bearing on the action of the weapon itself. As long as it can supply a fresh round after a spent casing has been ejected.

    As usual you are attempting to make the argument a false dichotomy.

    Please try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    My numerical limit-at minimum, what ever the police deem necessary for their protection. I, as a legal gun owner should at least have the ability to protect myself at the same level they do. The supreme court has ruled that peace officers have no duty to protect an individual, only society as a whole. So that leaves me that responsibility and I should be able to defend myself at that same level.
    I disagree. I would agree if I could be sure that you practiced to the level of police. I can not be assured that you as a citizen will do that.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-23-2013 at 06:04 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  23. #173
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,273

    Default

    Post deleted by user.
    SPFDRum likes this.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  24. #174
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Your assessment of why I support the general concept of an AWB is not correct. See my reply above regarding that. Based on that, there's no hypocrisy on my part.

    Then it is just plain stupid and insulting if it isn't hypocritical. You have repeatedly said, and then denied you said, that keeping those guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens would prevent them from ending up in the hands of criminals because the law abiding citizens would sell them to criminals.

    Maybe, but doing NOTHING, which appears to be your position, will definitely not improve the situation.

    See now here you are just being argumentative. I have stated MULTIPLE times what I think needs to happen. 1) Punish the criminals that use guns with HARSH sentences tht simply cannot be pleabargained away, 2) Fix the abysmal mental health care system that makes it virtually impossible to get people the help they need, or puts them on a never ending merry go round of being locked up in a mental ward, drugged, freed and returned to repeat it over and over again, 3) Fix the gun show loophole by having a station at all gun shows where required background checks must be made whether the sale is from an FFL dealer or a private citizen, 4) Do a more thorough background check when purchasing firearms.

    Hiding behind semantics is exactly what you are doing when you cite it as reason to not discuss the issue at all.

    I refuse to discuss a topic with someone either too lazy, or ignorant, to actually care enough to educate themselves adequately enough to be able to intelligently discuss what they want to take away from me.

    Yeah, she may want to do that, but it won't happen. She simply doesn't have the votes to make it go anywhere. I don't know about the brainwashing part, but I think we probably should look at how we view and think about guns. I think it's quite a leap to think these two people's comments say that F&F was OK.

    DO SOME RESEARCH ON THIS TOPIC.

    And he's openly stated that he'd do stuff related to other issues and didn't. Honestly, I don't have a problem with him making the "threat". Maybe that'll light a fire under congress to seriously address the issue? I'll reserve judgment on following thru on that threat if we get to that point.

    And maybe if he pushes this enough people will be ****ed off about it to call for his impeachment. He is an elected offical, not king, and not a dictator. We have a system of government with 3 branches, one of which isn't bypass the other 2.

    Correct, but some change can be good even if we don't like it.

    And some change does nothing at all except rob law abiding citizens of their rights while not doing a damn thing to improve safety or society in any way.


    My mind is just fine. Your beef over this particular issue is not with me and I haven't voiced any support for what happened.

    No you just said that if the gun manufacturers hadn't made the guns the feds couldn't have illegally sold them. BRILLIANT, pass the buck much?

    Yeah I realize that, but that's not my line of thinking. That's just your view. I'm not blaming the manufacturer. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to follow. All guns originally come from manufacturers. If production of the XYZ-3000 was halted, that would have an impact on the availability of the XYZ-3000 to those who sell guns illegally.

    You clearly blamed the manufacturer. Your logic is insane because you can't admit that criminals don't give a damn about laws and will just find another source for another weapon.

    I did no such thing. That is exclusively your interpretation.

    Yes you did.

    I'm far from delusional and you pretty much hit on my point from a different direction. It's pretty clear to me that she doesn't have sufficient legislative support to get a full ban. To me, she's just putting on a good show.

    You whole stance here is delusional.

    I don't think it's my individual right to actually infringe upon your personal rights. However, I do have the right to advocate for a change in our laws and/or constitution that could (in the opinion of some people) have that effect.

    Just as I have the right to advocate for the removal of your rights. The difference is I see the loss of any rights as inherently damaging to our country. You pathetically see it as progress.

    If you are actually presenting the legislation for consideration, then I would agree that specifics are extremely important. However, as I’ve stated several times now, if one person is saying “X” and the correct term is “Y”, but you both know that you are talking about “Z”, then there’s no reason to not have the conversation and include addressing the usage of the wrong term.

    God you really are that ignorant. Sorry, I tried to give you more credit than that. You are all about stirring the pot and enflaming the public in an attempt to gain support.


    No, I was not referring to “law abiding citizens”. I was referring to people (whether criminals or law abiding citizens) purchasing firearms via legal channels and then selling them illegally.

    How can you say you weren't referring to law abiding citizens and in the same sentence same you were?

    Exactly because I’ve encountered very, very, very few “pro-gun” people who are willing to entertain the possibility of anything other than no restrictions regarding guns.

    And I have yet to meet an anti-gunner that will admit the problem isn't an inanimate object but criminals and the mentally ill.

    I know that you didn’t mention sports cars. Your comparison was flawed. We were talking about restricting use of a specific object – “assault weapons” – by all people. A person would still have access to other types of weapons. In other words, anybody can own a “traditional” hunting rifle, but not an AR-15. Your comparison was about restricting an action – driving motor vehicles – by a specific group of people. In other words, non-drunk drivers can drive, but not that much. The correct comparison to what I stated in car terms would be everyone is allowed own a sedan (that “traditional” hunting rifle), but not a sports car (the AR-15).

    Not the same comparison at all and frankly you know it.

    No, I stated stopping all citizens from being able to legally purchase a specific weapon, would decrease the availability of said weapon for illegal resale – largely due to a decrease or halting of its production. This refers specifically to units of the specific weapon that haven’t been produced yet, not units that are already in circulation. You simply can’t resell the individual firearm that never existed.

    Production won't get halted and here is where you are delusional once again.

    No, as I stated, I’m disputing whether or not a particular firearm should be available to the private citizen. IMO, restricting the ability to purchase and/or own a specific firearm model is not a violation of your “rights” as you don’t actually have the “right” to own any specific model of firearm. You would still have the right to own firearms, just not certain ones.

    Show me where in the 2nd Ammendment it spells out what I can and can't own? You are adding to that to meet your needs.

    You disagree, but ultimately neither of us would be the ones making the determination if someone’s rights have been restricted.

    Oh I think the standing by and letting gun rights be taken away is over. The uproar will be deafening this time. So don't count your anti-gun chickens before they hatch. If they do hatch prepare for a political massacre at the next election cycle.

    I don’t recall saying yours won’t work. I do recall saying that those are not the only 2 areas that we should be discussing to address the problem.

    My ideas infringe on no law abiding citizens rights. The very basis of your plan is that it is okay to do that.
    Step away from the anti-gun talking points and do some research of our own.
    SPFDRum likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  25. #175
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Step away from the anti-gun talking points and do some research of our own.
    OK, you've convinced me that I'm all wrong. I'm gonna go write a letter to my Senator to see about making it mandatory for everybody to own at least 2 guns (just in case 1 doesn't work).

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 16 First ... 45678910 ... Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone else see a trend.....
    By BCmdepas3280 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-16-2006, 01:12 AM
  2. Noticeable Trend?
    By ltoffd in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-02-2004, 01:30 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-24-2004, 11:11 AM
  4. Disturbing Trend - MUTT x 4
    By RspctFrmCalgary in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-21-2002, 10:42 AM
  5. Disturbing Trend
    By firedog11ku in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-01-2001, 10:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register