General Political Thread

[KevinG]

.22 and deer hunting. I didn't realize this topic was gonna have some humor in it.

 

about as funny as using armor piercing bullets on deer, cause that is needed.   

[LouieB]

And then we would taste the tyranny that the Australians and Norwegians have suffered so brutally through.....

 

 

Brutal.

 

Okay so you can't kill deer with a 22. But you can kill one with a bow and arrow. 

 

I wish all we were talking about was killing deer here, because this would at least break out into a fairly clear discussion of people who think it is okay to kill deer and those who don't.  But clearly this is not a discussion of killing some varmets for fun or food, it is about killing people. 

 

The real discussion is about what does it take to protect yourself from bad people and how to defeat a tyrannical government, both of which entail killing humans, not deer.  And it is also a discussion about our constitutional right to blow shit up and have these armaments because we have a right to collect them. 

 

Let's be honest, all you Ted Nugent fans; if you are so paranoid that you think you need a personal arsenal to defeat the tyrannical US government, then you probably DO have a problem that could result in killing humans, because you have every intention of eventually needing them to do so.  So those of us that think you don't need them, despite your god given right by the US Constitution to have them, your intentions do frighten and dismay us.  And if you are freaked out that someone may break in to your house and kill you and therefore you need numerous guns at your command on a moments notice, you also may end up killing someone accidentally who should not have been killed including your friends and family. 

 

For those of you who think lots of guns are cool, just like us wacky LP collectors who don't need all our records, okay keep collecting.  I can certainly appreciate your mania and certainly would like to view a few classic guns, just like I like to view classic cars.  And if you like to blow shit up, okay, go blow some shit up.  Have fun.

 

LouieB

[Hixter]

about as funny as using armor piercing bullets on deer, cause that is needed.   

Just about any hunting rifle will penetrate body armor; rifle rounds are fast and pack an enormous punch. The whole "armor piercing bullets" thing is really a handgun issue. I don't think the average gun owner gives such ammunition much consideration. One thing to note is that that kind of ammunition isn't made with lead and is therefore more environmentally friendly. 

 

Let's be honest, all you Ted Nugent fans; if you are so paranoid that you think you need a personal arsenal to defeat the tyrannical US government, then you probably DO have a problem that could result in killing humans, because you have every intention of eventually needing them to do so.  So those of us that think you don't need them, despite your god given right by the US Constitution to have them, your intentions do frighten and dismay us. 

The whole point of this discussion -- at least as far as my posts are concerned -- has been to point out that all gun owners are not fanatics, paranoid nor itching to kill someone. Your "to each, his own" attitude is the appropriate one, but when you throw out words like "paranoid" and "mania" you're demeaning the vast majority of gun owners.

 

Here's an ordered list of the ways I'm likely to use the handful of guns I own:

 

001) Shooting targets at the range

002) Shooting targets at my friends' ranches

003) Hunting

087) Shooting a threatening coyote while hiking in the woods

275) Defending myself against a burglar or attacker

472) Defending myself against a tyrannical government

473) Killing zombies

[Tweedling]

about as funny as using armor piercing bullets on deer, cause that is needed.   

What the hell are you talking about? Really.

 

 

[Tweedling]

And if you are freaked out that someone may break in to your house and kill you and therefore you need numerous guns at your command on a moments notice, you also may end up killing someone accidentally who should not have been killed including your friends and family.

 

LouieB

Louie, you could, God forbid, do that without a gun in your house. I think it's a little unfair to lump that scenario in there when I believe that automobiles and knives kill more people each year than guns.

[Winston Legthigh]

automobiles + knives > guns? probably

 

knives > guns? not even close.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-7

[Hixter]

automobiles + knives > guns? probably

 

knives > guns? not even close.

I assumed he meant "assault" rifles. In that case, it's an accurate statement. (The same is true for bare hands and feet, too.)

[KevinG]

Just about any hunting rifle will penetrate body armor; rifle rounds are fast and pack an enormous punch. The whole "armor piercing bullets" thing is really a handgun issue. I don't think the average gun owner gives such ammunition much consideration. One thing to note is that that kind of ammunition isn't made with lead and is therefore more environmentally friendly. 

 

So why is the NRA so concerned with a ban on armor piercing ammunition?

 

 

 

The whole point of this discussion -- at least as far as my posts are concerned -- has been to point out that all gun owners are not fanatics, paranoid nor itching to kill someone. Your "to each, his own" attitude is the appropriate one, but when you throw out words like "paranoid" and "mania" you're demeaning the vast majority of gun owners.

 

But you have to admit there is a small portion of the gun owning community (society as a whole really) that is paranoid and unstable.  And unfortunately because these people have the potential to do harm we have to inconvenience the majority of society.  If everyone was a responsible gun owner we wouldn't have to have gun laws.  That is what the majority of laws do.  That is why I have to give my drivers license every time I buy cold medicine.  Because a few use it to create a harmful substance.  

 

I re-read over Obama's executive orders.  http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/01/16/obamas-23-executive-actions-guns  Looking at it a majority of them directly deal with preventing bad people form getting guns.  Really out of the 23 listed here, what do you have a problem with and why?

[Tweedling]

Some of the orders seem like they should have been done long ago....like appointing a director for the ATF. As The daily show noted, the democratic controlled Senate is required to confirm this but Obama should have been on that a long time ago.

 

I'm wondering what #21 means, "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."

Can anyone explain?

 

[ih8music]

Some of the orders seem like they should have been done long ago....like appointing a director for the ATF. As The daily show noted, the democratic controlled Senate is required to confirm this but Obama should have been on that a long time ago.

 

I'm wondering what #21 means, "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."

Can anyone explain?

 

 

Some of the orders had to do with clarifying coverage under the ACA (i.e. #16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes") -- I'm guessing #21 has to do with ensuring that the language is clear that all exchanges under the ACA need to adhere to a certain set of basic provisions, including these new ones.

 

Either that, or it's a devious plot to expand Obamacare in the wake of this tragedy. 

[Hixter]

So why is the NRA so concerned with a ban on armor piercing ammunition?

As I said before, nearly every rifle cartridge can penetrate a police officer's vest, so all the government has to do is declare them to be evil, cop-killing bullets and then all the rifle ammo disappears. That includes the stuff people use for hunting, not just "assault" rifles.

 

As for the president's 23 orders, most of them deal with mental health issues and we'll discuss the government's right to know your private medical history in another thread. Right now, I'm concerned with the useless weapons/ammo/magazine bans and restrictions that the president is urging Congress to pass. (New York state beat him to the punch.)

[LouieB]

 

 

001) Shooting targets at the range

002) Shooting targets at my friends' ranches

003) Hunting

087) Shooting a threatening coyote while hiking in the woods

275) Defending myself against a burglar or attacker

472) Defending myself against a tyrannical government

473) Killing zombies

I think I have tried to be reasonable too, so 1-87 (not sure how that works) are all fine.  I can even go as far as 275, but the chance fo this being necessary is still pretty slim.  But where I have a particular problem is 472.

 

But if all the reasonable issues are in place then none of the proposals being floated by either Obama or any politician should be a problem for you or for the rest of the NRA.  You want to target shoot, fine. I have done that. You want a reasonable weapon to kill an intruder?  Fine, not my cup of tea, but so it goes.  What the hell do people need semi-automatic weapons for and why not background, license, and try and keep guns from getting into the wrong hands??  Why not background checks and why not registries of folks who should not have guns (mentally ill, felons, etc.)  No one so far has talked about taking all guns away or stopping people from buying more guns for sport. 

 

Unless folks were freaked out about imaginary shit like zombies and a facist US government (which we already sort of have without any bloodshed), I will say it again, I don't get it.  Individuals do not need (nor does the 2nd amendment indicate they have a right to) weapons of mass destruction intended to kill large numbers of human beings. 

 

LouieB

[LouieB]

Oh one last thing......not directed at anyone inparticular because those who want guns without any restrictions are not claiming to be right wing nut jobs and I will take them at their word.

 

For months and years we have heard from the right how the government is too big, is too intrusive, spends to much money, etc. etc. etc.  Then something like Newtown happens we get calls from a group like the NRA and others that the government need to do more. Give money for guards in all schools, teach teachers to handle guns (while busting their unions and saying they get paid too much and have huge pensions), enhance the mental health system, create more data bases etc. etc. etc, until the amount to do all that they are asking the government to do would pretty much break the current bank.

 

I have been saying here for months and years that no one wants the government to do anything or spend any money until something goes wrong and then, fuck it, the sky is the limit.  We saw that in the 2000s when the neocons, who thought the government should stay out of everything, decided to literally break the bank on the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, a bill we will all pay for (and our grandchildren too) for a very long time. 

 

So now the call is not to inforce the laws already on the books (Obama isn't supposed to do THAT.) and we aren't supposed to have any new ones.  But we are somehow supposed to solve problems that just a few months ago people were saying we shouldn't go near.  A well thought out long term strategy towards big problems, including everyone having to pay for it, is still the most frugal way to get shit done.  Throwing money at in crises really isn't, because the government doesn't work well in crises mode.  It can work well by consitantly re-evaluating progress towards reasonable goals on a long time basis with on going to support for those efforts. 

 

This may not be very articulate, but as someone who has worked for and watched government for a long time, and also watched public reaction to the government, I know for sure that constantly changing shit up without carefully considering the ramifications is a recipe for failure.  Doing nothing is also!! 

 

LouieB

[Tweedling]

Louie, do you know what a semi-automatic gun is? Not trying to be a smart ass but seriously, do you?

[Hixter]

I think I have tried to be reasonable too, so 1-87 (not sure how that works) 

It was a (rather poor) attempt at depicting just how unlikely I think the chances of fighting a tyrannical government are. I own guns -- including an "assault" rifle -- but I'm not paranoid. 

 

 

 

why not background, license, and try and keep guns from getting into the wrong hands??

When have I said that I was against those things? I've gone through a background check every time I've purchased a firearm and my concealed handgun license entailed another background check, fingerprinting, 8 hours of classroom instruction and a marksmanship test at a shooting range.

 

 

Individuals do not need (nor does the 2nd amendment indicate they have a right to) weapons of mass destruction intended to kill large numbers of human beings. 

You do understand that semiautomatic pistols and "assault" rifles are just like revolvers and hunting rifles, right? One bullet per trigger pull. Contrary to what the press and gun control zealots would like you to believe, an AR15 doesn't "spray" bullets any more than a revolver does. It's not a "weapon of mass destruction" any more than Grandpa's hunting rifle is. Banning "assault" rifles and magazines of a certain size won't do a thing to reduce gun crime or prevent more Sandy Hooks. Even if Lanza had been armed with a duffel bag full of single-shot derringers, all those kids would have died. An armed person vs. a bunch of unprotected 6-year-olds will always have an unpleasant end.

[Hixter]

those who want guns without any restrictions

I've never said that and I don't recall anyone else saying it in this forum, either.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

You do understand that semiautomatic pistols and "assault" rifles are just like revolvers and hunting rifles, right? One bullet per trigger pull. Contrary to what the press and gun control zealots would like you to believe, an AR15 doesn't "spray" bullets any more than a revolver does. It's not a "weapon of mass destruction" any more than Grandpa's hunting rifle is. Banning "assault" rifles and magazines of a certain size won't do a thing to reduce gun crime or prevent more Sandy Hooks. Even if Lanza had been armed with a duffel bag full of single-shot derringers, all those kids would have died. An armed person vs. a bunch of unprotected 6-year-olds will always have an unpleasant end.

I'm not trying to be a smartass either, but maybe some of you gun-owners can educate us peaceniks on this. If an AR15, assault rifle, or whatever you call it, can shoot one bullet per trigger pull, and the magazine holds 30 bullets, does that not mean you can pull the trigger (and shoot 30 bullets) in 30 seconds? Whereas a revolver can only shoot, say, six bullets in six seconds, and then you have to reload? I have never owned or fired a gun, except for a little .22 or whatever when I was a kid.

If that is the case, it seems a lot more dangerous, because you can, theoretically, kill 30 people in 30 seconds, whereas with a six-shooter you have to stop and reload after six, and someone could, I don't know, tackle you or punch you. I am seriously asking the question. 

[Hixter]

with a six-shooter you have to stop and reload after six, and someone could, I don't know, tackle you or punch you. I am seriously asking the question. 

It's a reasonable question. That said, are a bunch of 6-year-olds going to tackle a grown man?

 

The president wants a 10-round magazine limit, while the standard magazine for an AR15 is 30 rounds. So that means you have to reload twice (takes one to two seconds) to kill the same amount of people. Yes, there's a brief period where the gunman isn't shooting, but most bystanders would be too busy running, hiding or panicking to think about jumping the shooter.

 

I think I read that the Aurora shooter had a ridiculous 100-round magazine for his AR15. It malfunctioned and he switched to a shotgun to do much of the killing. Go ahead and ban anything above the firearm's standard magazine size since they weren't designed to use them and they're very likely to malfunction.

 

Oh yeah, there are also speed loaders for revolvers that allow for reloading almost as fast as replacing a magazine.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I'm a pretty peaceful guy, but if I were responsible for a bunch of six-year-olds, I would take that mother down and beat him to death with his own gun when he stopped to reload, and I'd be willing to risk my life to make the attempt. Just sayin'...

 

I don't really see a problem with the President's proposal. It would only ban the future manufacture of more of these weapons, from my understanding, which means there are still millions of them out there. It won't prevent the next Sandy Hook, but maybe it would help keep us from having 28 more Sandy Hooks as opposed to the inevitable 10 or 11...if that makes any sense at all.

 

My head hurts just thinking about this stuff...

[Hixter]

I'm a pretty peaceful guy, but if I were responsible for a bunch of six-year-olds, I would take that mother down and beat him to death with his own gun when he stopped to reload, and I'd be willing to risk my life to make the attempt.

Same here on both counts, but I suspect that the shooter locked the door, shot the teachers first and then was unopposed. It makes my head (and heart) hurt, too. 

[LouieB]

I do know that a semi-automatic is NOT a machine gun, so that you have to pull the trigger each time. But you can have a whole lot of bullets depending on the size of the magazine. 

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

 

The president wants a 10-round magazine limit, while the standard magazine for an AR15 is 30 rounds. So that means you have to reload twice (takes one to two seconds) to kill the same amount of people. Yes, there's a brief period where the gunman isn't shooting, but most bystanders would be too busy running, hiding or panicking to think about jumping the shooter.

 

 

by that logic, if it takes 1-2 seconds to reload a magazine (and they are relatively cheap) does it really matter to you if you have a 30 round or 10 round magazine?  Logic dictates if you can't hit a deer with 10 bullets you ain't gonna hit it with 30.  And who says that 30 is the standard?  Why isn't 10 the standard?

 

Furthermore, if there is a 1-2 second time period where a mass shooter has stopped that may allow a person to escape, take some action, or whatever, isn't that a good thing?  We could potentially have of 28 dead instead of 30.   

 

Again the question comes down to need vs. want.  You may want have 30 rounds, but you don't need 30.  

 

This is something that the pro-gun side here has not demonstrated, why the proposals by PBO and his executive orders are infringing on the things you need.  

[LouieB]

 

This is something that the pro-gun side here has not demonstrated, why the proposals by PBO and his executive orders are infringing on the things you need.  

There is a definite reason for this.  The reason NONE of the other stuff we discuss regarding the sensible use and ownership of guns is of any interest to these folks. 

 

Kill a deer?  Fine!!  Not my cup of tea, but you gotta live with killing Bambi's mother.  Killing people??  Not okay except under the absolute worst of circumstances (and those pacifists such as Menonites, Quakers, etc. don't even agree with that.). Most of these guns, ammo, and associated equipment issues all have to do with the more effective ways of killing people.  They aren't okay for criminals and they shouldn't be okay with law abiding gun owners.   

 

Trying to bring a little sense of order to horrific events, while not infringing on anyone's rights, is all the President is doing.  Those okay with killing humans may not see it that way, but most of the rest of us do.

 

LouieB

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I did a little reading on the AR-15 just to educate myself and found an article with some info about it. At the end of the article, there was the standard comments section, and quite a few people were mocking the notion of using such a weapon for hunting. These were all gun owners talking amongst themselves, and a fair number denounced the notion of shooting at an animal with something like that...calling it "silly," and basically making it sound like it is the exact opposite of sportsmanship: "To shoot at a coyote 8 times with tracer rounds out of an ar15 is just plain ignorant IMO, pure lack of respect for the animal."

Seems there is some disagreement on the merits of using these weapons even among gun enthusiasts. Interesting.

[The High Heat]

Couldn't schools install emergency exit doors in every classroom just the same as implementing armed protection? I'd be all for a federal fund to support keeping kids from trapped in a single-entrance room. Newly planned schools should also be required to provide emergency exits in every classroom.