As most firearms are

2/4/2013 1:30:51 AM

Hey yall lets the repeal the Lautenberg Amendment from 1996. This is a real asshole and his refusal to remove his bullshit gun control measure from the Cyberlaw Bill just shows why we don't need 88 year-old people making legislative decisions.

2/4/2013 1:32:55 AM

You beat your wife, no guns for you. I'm ok with that.

2/4/2013 1:37:49 AM

Come on now, you know that is not exactly how that law works.

That said, I would agree with EXACTLY ^that but not what all this law blankets.

[Edited on February 4, 2013 at 1:43 AM. Reason : /]

2/4/2013 1:39:07 AM

How does it work? I admit I'm not too familiar with it.

2/4/2013 1:42:43 AM

Any conviction considered misdemeanor (NOT FELONY)domestic violence you are banned for life from gun ownership. In some cases people just pleaded guilty and really did not do anything but try to get away from a crazy argumentative person and were ill-advised and they rolled with it. You should read about some of the stories. It was enacted in 1996 but ANYONE with misdemeanor domestic violence (even if it happened 20 years prior) lose gun rights - many police and servicemen were INSTANTLY terminated after being on jobs for 10, 15, 20 years for some BS that happened when they was 18 years old or something stupid that like.

[Edited on February 4, 2013 at 1:48 AM. Reason : /]

2/4/2013 1:47:33 AM

Ex post facto is unconstitutional

2/4/2013 1:49:10 AM

This law is an exception (for now) since it doesn't technically go back and change anything, it just makes it illegal for a one convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to possess or transfer a gun. Its the crazy shit I ever read about in the law books.

2/4/2013 1:51:45 AM

Changes the penalty of the crime, which is unconstitutional I thought

2/4/2013 1:54:23 AM

I 100% agree, but try telling that the US Supreme Court and see how far you get.

2/4/2013 1:56:07 AM

Quote :

"You could make the same argument FOR automatic weapons that you can make for the AR15, regarding home defence"

I agree with NRR:

Quote :

"Nope, the only purpose of full auto is covering fire on a battlefield. The military teaches semi automatic mode, two in the chest and one in the head for close quarters combat. There's a reason the military dumped full auto for three round bursts on the M16 and M4"

I'm saying this seems to be the only acceptable compromise (in terms of ownership) to the majority of pro-gunners. You don't see much backlash against laws banning machine guns, probably because the vast majority of civilians see semi-automatics as more ideal than full-automatics because of: reduced ammunition (in sheer volume of rounds likely to be fired), accuracy, and practicality. There's more accountability involved because every shot taken requires an input/thought from the shooter. Just my opinion though.

2/4/2013 7:27:32 AM

^^so under that law I could beat my wife to dodge the draft?

2/4/2013 8:30:20 AM

You don't even have to beat her, just let her say you did it and that would be enough.

2/4/2013 11:00:58 AM

No, I think you should beat her so you don't get caught in a lie.

2/4/2013 12:01:19 PM

Well in that case you might as well shoot her to get a felony, then there is a chance to get your gun rights restored after you get out of prison.

2/4/2013 12:13:35 PM

2/4/2013 12:55:35 PM

And just know that domestic violence can involve parents/children, not just child abuse but say if you and your grown asshole of a child got into a fight BAM its triggers Lautenberg Amendment. It doesn't just encompass intimate partners or one's with a child in common.

2/4/2013 1:42:00 PM

I honestly hope every gun owner gets murdered by the government

it will be a great day for our nation when the last gun nut expires

2/4/2013 6:40:07 PM

Woah, you're hoping that 150 Million fellow Americans get murdered?

You liberals sure are violent

2/4/2013 7:44:56 PM

If you come to my house asking for gas, I'm going to get my little lady gun out and shoot you.

2/4/2013 7:49:01 PM

Still, if they AR15 is so docile, than why has it been used in mass shootings so frequently. How is it so inconceivable that putting a ban on them would inhibit such mass shootings?

Let's say some Jo doesn't own an AR15, goes off on some rampage but because of a band can't get one so he takes a shot gun instead, or just decides to skip out altogether. Why is that scenario so inconceivable?

2/4/2013 8:03:45 PM

2/4/2013 8:05:12 PM

Crazy Joe is just going to blow up some mother fuckers instead. Still mass killings. Just in one big BOOM!

Crazy is crazy and Crazy is gonna take people out with or without a gun.

2/4/2013 8:05:19 PM

bottombaby gets it

2/4/2013 8:17:36 PM

Quote :

"why has it been used in mass shootings so frequently"

Where is a source for firearms used in mass shootings? (seriously, I don't have a great one yet) I only know of two (Aurora and Sandy Hook) that an AR15 was involved, and I still haven't heard 100% which weapons Lanza used: I've heard two pistols/no AR, AR-only, AR in trunk. Does anyone know an accurate source for this info? Personally, I wouldn't say these two incidents qualify as "frequently", but certainly the fact that it is the most popular rifle in America plays a role, though I'm not sure how much. Also, since these firearms were Lanza's mother's property, I wonder if she had others and he chose these, or these happened to be the most "available", etc.?

Quote :

"How is it so inconceivable that putting a ban on them would inhibit such mass shootings? Let's say some Jo doesn't own an AR15, goes off on some rampage but because of a band can't get one so he takes a shot gun instead, or just decides to skip out altogether. Why is that scenario so inconceivable?"

My question to you is: why are you trying to "conceive" actions/reactions of the mentally deranged/unstable/disturbed. Nothing about their actions make sense. Maybe Lanza couldn't get hold of an AR and he just went on his rampage w/ handguns instead. Maybe he couldn't get access to any firearms so he just mows through a crowd of children with his car instead. These are the acts of someone NOT in their right mind, so it's impossible to rationalize the thoughts of the irrational/unhinged.

Edit: to be clear, it's the "inhibit" in your quote that I was specifically referring to

[Edited on February 4, 2013 at 8:23 PM. Reason : ]

2/4/2013 8:20:13 PM

I haven't really paid attention to this thread, but if anyone is really interested ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

2/4/2013 8:29:45 PM

Quote :

"Still, if they AR15 is so docile, than why has it been used in mass shootings so frequently. How is it so inconceivable that putting a ban on them would inhibit such mass shootings? "

Well, for one thing, because they are fucking everywhere now. They are the most popular rifle sold in America, year after year. That's partly because they are versatile and modular, and partly due to them being rather "docile" to shoot due to their low power and good ergonomics, but it's also very much because of the previous ban.

ARs were sort of a...maybe not "fringe" weapon, but somewhat unusual and well outside the mainstream for 2-3 decades. I remember a friend's dad having one when we were kids, and it was kind of a novelty, something unusual and cool...and then the '94 AWB catapulted them into the very heart of the mainstream.

So, while not to blame for mass shootings, Feinstein and Co. are very much responsible for AR variants being fucking EVERYWHERE now. That's not really good or bad in my view; it's just a rifle. There's nothing noteworthy about it specifically other than that large magazines are commonly associated with it--the noteworthy thing about it is that there are fucking millions of them now, which is why they're being used more often in crimes. You aren't likely to get shot by a blunderbuss not because it wouldn't fuck you up, but because they are uncommon.

2/4/2013 8:51:13 PM

lol

I thought ARs were bad

FN SCARs doubled in price as well

[Edited on February 4, 2013 at 8:58 PM. Reason : well looks like all "assault" rifles did ]

2/4/2013 8:56:01 PM

Quote :

"You aren't likely to get shot by a blunderbuss not because it wouldn't fuck you up, but because they are uncommon."

+1

2/4/2013 9:08:33 PM

Quote :

"I'm just going based on this:... [some quote about a threaded barrell]"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Continue making a fool out of yourself dude.

Quote :

"It's a coined term. If we're going to talk about an "assault weapon" and how they are banned, then you need that definition. Again, what is included in the definition and whether it is "correct" is a totally separate topic."

And, AGAIN, his entire point was that the definition was fucking insane. You just don't get it.

Quote :

"The AWB specifically defined AK47s and AR15s as AW."

Except that it didn't. Do you even know a single thing about the AWB, because you sure aren't acting like you do.

Quote :

"What is my argument? Define it."

Your argument is that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about whatsoever when it comes to firearms, and you are arguing vehemently from this position of ignorance.

Quote :

"Still, if they AR15 is so docile, than why has it been used in mass shootings so frequently."

You made this statement before, but have offered zero statistics or references to back up your claim... Also, we're still waiting for you to tell us why the AR-15 isn't suited for home defense. You've conveniently slinked off and not answered questions which should be easily answered if you are correct.

Quote :

"Let's say some Jo doesn't own an AR15, goes off on some rampage but because of a band can't get one so he takes a shot gun instead, or just decides to skip out altogether. Why is that scenario so inconceivable?"

If you're gonna play that game, then why is it so inconceivable that citizens with CCP could take out mass shooters more readily than cops? I mean, they've got guns and know to use them. Why is that inconceivable?

2/4/2013 9:20:19 PM

Quote :

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Continue making a fool out of yourself dude."

Care to show how I am making a fool out of myself? I have already admitted to not being some type of expert on any of this. I very well could have misunderstood something. Though I am glad you find my ignorance amusing, as it is people like me, and even more ignorant, who end up pushing for laws that place restrictions on what you can and can't buy. I guess there's a certain irony in it.

Quote :

"And, AGAIN, his entire point was that the definition was fucking insane. You just don't get it."

You don't get it. His fucking comparison was insane. His viewpoint on the definition is not what I am being critical about.

Quote :

"Except that it didn't. Do you even know a single thing about the AWB, because you sure aren't acting like you do."

Well, when it comes to the AK47:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_AK-47

Quote :

"The 1989 Semi-Automatic Rifle Import Ban (18 USC 925(d)(3)) and the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban specifically banned the AK-47 by name."

And the AR-15 makes an appearance in the list of weapons officially called out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Quote :

"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 amended Section 921(a) of title 18 of the United States Code to define semiautomatic assault weapons and specifically named the following nineteen (19) semi-automatic firearm models and/or model types, as well as any copies or duplicates of these firearms, in any caliber, as assault weapons. Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies AK-47 (all models) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Galil Beretta AR-70 and SC-70 Colt AR-15 Fabriqué National FN FAL FN LAR and FNC MAC-type handguns, including MAC-10 MAC-11 MAC 11/9 and MAC-12 Steyr AUG INTRATEC TEC-9 TEC-DC9 and TEC-22 Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12."

Quote :

"Your argument is that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about whatsoever when it comes to firearms, and you are arguing vehemently from this position of ignorance."

What am I arguing vehemently for or against? You didn't answer the question. All you did was make an attempt at trying to insult me.

You seriously don't know my position, nor do you seem to care. You are far more interested in taking minute details, blowing them up into something and then arguing ad nauseam, instead of discussing the far more important point/topic of mine or other people's actual viewpoint. You are seemingly more interested in arguing details instead of on a person's opinion or viewpoint. If you can't describe my viewpoint or opinion, then what are you arguing about? How many times do I have to point out that I admit to not knowing much about the technical details of guns.

2/5/2013 12:56:26 AM

CNN's incessant coverage of the issue reminds me of this classic...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtyZMRJbLq8&list=PLZCrAul6X36ozETX9BTOYlxZWAi0EW67u#t=04m52s

2/5/2013 1:07:13 AM

^^ you should really retread and make sure you understand before posting. You're being laughed at because you seem to be trying to argue from a standpoint that these features make a weapon more deadly when you obviously don't understand what (some) of them even are.

His comparison was completely accurate. You used the term "assault WEAPON" which is a made up term specifically designed to instill fear in anti's and regular gun ignorant people. He said "assault RIFLE" which is an actual term for a specific style of weapon that the AR15 does not belong to. People still call the AR15 an assault rifle all the time and its just accurate. Calling it an assault weapon is stupid and a ploy to make people think its the same thing. It's as valid an argument as a car with sticky tires, stickers, and a spoiler being called a race car. They LOOK similar or the same and uneducated people think they're going to outperform everything else on the road but they're actually just a regular car (rifle) with some add-ons (mag, grip, etc) that don't actually do much. You're arguing that you're using the AWB's definition of an assault weapon. We're arguing that it's a pointless definition that is only valid when used to push an agenda and scare people.

You talk about people not wanting to argue your viewpoint and only picking out your errors. How do you argue someone's viewpoint when they don't even understand it? You have a very elementary understanding of guns. You're arguing technical details that you think are important but actually don't understand what they are and that they aren't.

2/5/2013 8:08:47 AM

in other words, you're all up in the kool-aid, but you don't even know the flavor

2/5/2013 9:20:57 AM

There should be a checklist that precedes everyone's post to clarify what you do and don't want to ban.

- Automatic rifles
- high capacity clips
- semi-automatic rifles

...what else?

This idea of banning something based on model number instead of technical specifications seems completely idiotic.

2/5/2013 11:08:31 AM

Quote :

"high capacity clips"

Jesus Christ you don't even know what a clip is.

2/5/2013 11:51:26 AM

2/5/2013 1:03:58 PM

2/5/2013 1:12:31 PM

Quote :

"There should be a checklist that precedes everyone's post to clarify what you do and don't want to ban. - Automatic rifles - high capacity clips - semi-automatic rifles ...what else? This idea of banning something based on model number instead of technical specifications seems completely idiotic. "

This is a good example of why we can't have a good conversation on gun control. Too many people want to take part that know only what the media tells them. The first item is HEAVILY regulated already and extremely difficult to get (tax stamp, background check, ~6 months for approval, and starting cost around several thousand dollars just for the gun and everything must be repeated for each one purchased). The 2nd doesn't really exist (high cap mags are what people mean, a clip for the most part is something that is inserted into a non-detachable magazine to make loading easier). The 3rd one does exist but most people don't understand it because they get their info from the media. They've existed for a hundred years and have only recently been vilified due to comparisons with full auto assault rifles and phrases like "shoot as fast as you want" which is the same for a revolver or any modern firearm. You can't ban things based on technical specifications when people (especially those writing the laws as seen with the '94 AWB) don't even understand what those specifications are or do.

2/5/2013 1:18:14 PM

Listen guys, they are almost the same! Just adding one feature to a sporting good does not make it an assault weapon! Don't tread on my right to play sports. Sports industry is regulated heavily enough as it is. First they banned aluminum bats in highschool games, next thing you know, Obama will be confiscating ALL of our sporting goods.

2/5/2013 1:30:46 PM

so what would you like to have banned?

2/5/2013 1:33:46 PM

^^ Explain to me how that applies in the last to a barrel shroud, a pistol grip, a telescoping stock or a bayonet lug.

Oh wait you can't because they don't change the lethality of the weapon in the least.

All these people getting bayonetted to death all over the country...

^ NOTHING NEW. All the things that should be banned already are. FFS just enforce the shit already in the books.

[Edited on February 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM. Reason : *]

2/5/2013 2:22:29 PM

I wish these gun nuts would apply the same "you must be an expert in a field to have an opinion" standard to all the other insane right wing bullshit they go on about all the time

shut the fuck up about the 2nd amendment unless you're a constitutional attorney

shut the fuck up about gay marriage unless you're gay

just shut the fuck up

2/5/2013 2:56:43 PM

^i agree with settledown. if you're going to use that argument about guns, then you should keep all your opinions about other things to yourself, unless you're an expert on the subject.

2/5/2013 2:59:39 PM

how can i become a passionate online activist like settledown?

i want to make a difference

2/5/2013 4:13:47 PM

i heard settledown has a drinking problem

[Edited on February 5, 2013 at 4:42 PM. Reason : Probably why he hates Americans so much]

2/5/2013 4:15:43 PM

Quote :

"Listen guys, they are almost the same! Just adding one feature to a sporting good does not make it an assault weapon! Don't tread on my right to play sports. Sports industry is regulated heavily enough as it is. First they banned aluminum bats in highschool games, next thing you know, Obama will be confiscating ALL of our sporting goods."

2A isn't about sports

2/5/2013 5:18:39 PM

2A has been misinterpreted by assholes

MisterGreen and DoubleDown get how this thread works

Neuse is just an angry redneck fish out of water that needs to waddle his fat country ass back to the soap box

2/5/2013 5:32:40 PM

Quote :

"2A has been misinterpreted by assholes"

i agree whole-heartedly

2/5/2013 5:35:29 PM

you should start a nonprofit that dedicates itself to derailing productive public discourse with magazine/clip rants

2/5/2013 5:42:45 PM