12 Minutes 12 seconds how many lies can YOU spot?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel...

Rachel Maddow shows ,once again, that she isn't above lying to push her anti gun agenda and this time she has a useful idiot helping her

Yup
Yup
Yup

The social & economic devastation in urban areas caused by gun violence aren't lies.

The fact that the NRA, the GOP and the lunatic gun lobby have combined to create America's stupid & insane gun laws isn't a lie.

really such a stupid term and distinction...

Then belittle & deny the enormous human suffering that results from those very same policies.

Stupid & short-sighted

Criminal activity destroys communities. Leniency toward criminals destroys communities. No gun law, even complete removal of guns, would cure or even dramatically impact these actual issues.

as shown very clearly in Maddow's report. Who would really want to start a business in a community that is clearly blighted iwth gun violence?

Who would want to start a business in a community that is clearly blighted with violence? Who really cares what kind of violence?

but you know that, right?

aren't known now or ever for being fist fighters, they are significantly different than typical bar room brawls. But you knew that, right?

Why gun violence? Why not say what it really is? Gang violence. Getting rid of guns will not get rid of gang violence or even markedly reduce it. Getting rid of gangs will, on the other hand, dramatically reduce gun violence. It really is a no brainer.

Aren't the gang-bangers already breaking the law with all their inner-city shootings and what not?

let the affected communities elect representatives who can then pass and enforce laws that are appropriate to those communities.

Sounds fair enough to me.

don't want them to be flooded with guns. Why ignore the civil liberties of those people?

exactly how does my legal exercise of the second amendment violate their civil liberties. Please be specific

in a community where they are not subjected to whizzing stray bullets because of your absolutist and incorrect reading of the 2a.

lead to whizzing bullets in their community? Aren't you reffering to the illegal acts of criminals? Why should my right be curtailed because they broke the law? ready to lop off that penis yet?

leads to thes bullets whizzing and the bodies dropping. Your refusal to let communities pass laws as they see fit to protect their young people. There are consequences.

Only you, apparently.

we register cars and license drivers, so those ideas are reasonable for guns as well. They protect both me and you. Closing the gun show loophole is also good, since you can buy your gun at a licensed dealer either way.

You wouldn't dream of making tired slippery slope arguments, wouldja?

Need we remind you that you don't have to register your car or get a license to use a vehicle on your own private property, only if you drive it on public roads?

Don't believe the Bill of Rights says anything about cars either...

I'm just turning it against them.

If you want to use your car in any meaningful way, you have to register it. Why should guns be different?

Privileges can be taken away by the government. Rights cannot.

talking about registration and licensing.

The "right" (as part of an organized militia) to bear arms has been revoked from felons and the mentally ill. Are you Ok with that?

I would think the exceptions to the rule would have to be very, very narrow indeed with that language in there.

Banning felons and mentally ill people from bearing firearms is pretty narrow, but requiring every law-abiding gun owner to register and be licensed seems like much more of an infringement to me.

Again, if you don't like the wording of the Second Amendment, feel free to advocate for its repeal. Good luck getting two-thirds of the states to go along with you.

I like the wording. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

You prefer to ignore that part, I prefer not to. I read the whole sentence, you read half of it.

Why would law abiding gun owners object to registration and licensing? I know that as I driver I'm pretty excited about people having to get a license and register their vehicles. What makes you so gung ho about unlicensed firearms?

Banning felons and mentally ill people from bearing firearms is pretty narrow, but requiring every law-abiding gun owner to register and be licensed seems like much more of an infringement to me.

I don't read the constitution as saying that mentally ill people and felons don't have the right to speak freely or practice their religion. Do you think they should be denied these rights? Why (in your view) is the 2nd different from the 1st in this respect?

as a limiting condition on "the right of the people".

No-one else has been able to manage that in over 230 years, so good luck.

the evidence abounds and I can't say it any better.

The Heller decision was a radical rewriting of the law (something this illegitimate court has done several times), it does not represent the entire history of the US.

It's pretty clear what the founders meant. Well-regulated = well-equipped. Militia = every able bodied adult male between the ages of 18 and 45. If anything, the definition has been expanded to include women and minorities, thanks to incorporation via the 14th Amendment.

Why do you ignore "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?" Why do you think "the people" of the 2nd Amendment is any different than "the people" being spoken of in the First and Fourth?

I actually think felons should get their right to keep and bear restored upon completion of their sentence. (Obviously restrictions apply while they are incarcerated or on probation or parole, of course, since they are effectively still in custody, hence no 4th Amendment rights, etc...) If a particular felon is too dangerous to practice his Constitutional rights, why is he being let out of prison and off supervision in the first place?

Well-regulated = well-equipped

Huh? Your math is wrong there. Well-regulated means what it says. Regulation does not = equipment. Your English or your math is wrong here. You decide which.

Militia = every able bodied adult male between the ages of 18 and 45.

So after the age of 45...no more right to bear arms? Lol.

It is pretty clear what the founders meant. They talked about this. They meant that there should be no standing army...they didn't say anything about m-16's in the federalist papers.

at the time of the writing is what is wrong.

You could, of course, look it up, but I'm betting you won't.

but I'm guessing you won't.

I notice you just glossed right over that part.

I simply read it in its context. You ignore the context, which is not my fault.

Who are "the people" if not individual citizens?

it says well-regulated militia. The first amendment doesn't say that a well regulated militia is necessary for people to practice their religion.

Would go to great lengths enumerating the rights of individual citizens in the First and Fourth Amendments, and then just stick something vague about "state's rights" in the Second Amendment, completely detached from individual rights? Even though the individual right to keep and bear arms is even more lucidly illustrated in various state constitutions of New England?

Your problem is that the SCOTUS has ruled its an individual right. Obama has acknowledged its an individual right. It is settled law. Don't like it? Too bad.

they ruled that corporations are people. Just last week they ruled that people can't bring class action lawsuits against companies that steal from them. The chief justice of this present court was illegally appointed by an unelected president.

At one point Plessy v. Ferguson was settled law. Dredd Scott too. Woodrow Wilson said that Birth of a Nation was a documentary.

I refer you to Breyer's dissent:

The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation...editorial note by me: A well REGULATED milita

Although I adopt for present purposes the majority’s position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense, I shall not assume that the Amendment contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars. The majority, which presents evidence in favor of the former proposition, does not, because it cannot, convincingly show that the Second Amendment seeks to maintain the latter in pristine, unregulated form.

To the contrary, colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the “right to keep and bear arms,” whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home.

Boston, Philadelphia, and New York City, the three largest cities in America during that period, all restricted the firing of guns within city limits to at least some degree...

Until a more favorable SCOTUS comes along and decides to re-visit the issue, it is the law of the land.

So any gun control efforts for the foreseeable future have to be partaken with that in mind.

SCOTUS "corrupt".

Grow up and accept the decision for what it is, settled law.

"settled law" LMAO!!! 5-4 decision, based on the corrupted, illegitimate right wing majority. Settled law? Not by a long shot.

it says well-regulated militia. The first amendment doesn't say that a well regulated militia is necessary for people to practice their religion.

You'll also note that the second amendment doesn't say that a well regulated militia is necessary for the people to keep and bear arms.

The prefatory clause does not restrict the operative clause, it provides a positive reason for the operative clause's existence. It's not necessarily in the interest of the state (as distinct from its citizens) to permit public gatherings, require warrants to perform searches and seizures, have to follow due process, etc. etc. But it is in the interest of the state to, in the (these days, admittedly highly unlikely) event of an armed insurrection or a foreign invasion, to have available in the recruiting pool as many citizens as possible who are already skilled in at least the basics of weapons handling and marksmanship. Persons over 45 may not be required to serve in the militia, but they can still impart weapons-handling skills on persons who are young to be called to arms, so it's not in the state's interest to infringe on their right to keep and bear arms either.


Difference in wording.
The First says "Congress shall make no law <...> prohibiting the free exercise <of religion>; or abridging the freedom of speech <...>"
The Second says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In 18th century thinking, convicted felons and the mentally ill were not considered to be members of "the people"; often quite literally, since at the time, banishment or death were standard punishments for felonies (of which there were a damn sight fewer than there are now). So Congress cannot impose restrictions on freedom of religion or speech which it could impose on the ability of non-members of "the people" to keep and bear arms. To compare, you could plausibly argue that prior to the adoption of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, foreigners and other non-members of "the people" did not have a right "peaceably to assemble" or "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," even though Congress was constitutionally forbidden to restrict their freedoms of religion and speech.

I like the wording. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

You prefer to ignore that part, I prefer not to. I read the whole sentence, you read half of it.

Let's once again look at the entire amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, the founders intended for the states to maintain state-controlled militias. This was a decentralized military force in keeping with their entire pervasive theme of checks and balances in all other aspects of the government. They feared the concentration of power in any one part of the government, and this distrust included a standing army, which they feared could be used by the federal government to oppress the people of the states.

To this end, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Why? Because the People were to make up the state militias. What kind of arms are they speaking of? Arms appropriate for use in a militia capable of replacing or at least countering federal military power. In 1776, this would be a flintlock musket. But as the arms of the federal military power increase technologically, so must the arms of the people if they are to continue to be able to fulfill their role in the militia.

Militias as the founders knew them ceased to exist in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act. This essentially federalized the state militias, creating the Organized Militia (National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia (all able-bodied men age 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia).

I have no doubt the founders anticipated the corruption or usurpation of the militias and this is why they specifically worded the second amendment to enumerate the right of the People to keep and bear arms and specifically did not reserve those rights to the militias.

So yes, the founders felt that militias were necessary to the security of free states, because they eliminated or at least could counter federal military power. But the right to keep and bear arms was still reserved to the People.

Why would law abiding gun owners object to registration and licensing?

Because licensing and registering firearm owners gives the government a list of all the people capable of bearing arms against it. If you agree that the purpose of the second amendment was describe an institution, made up of the People, capable of replacing or at least countering federal military power, then you must agree that giving the government a list of all those people seriously undermines their ability to stand against said government.

I know that as I driver I'm pretty excited about people having to get a license and register their vehicles. What makes you so gung ho about unlicensed firearms?

Firstly, it is essential to preserve anonymous firearm ownership, for the reasons I've stated above. But further, what we see from the people who currently submit to voluntary licensing and registration, namely CCW permit holders, is that they hardly ever are involved in crime, let alone firearm crime. You see, people who are willing to go to the trouble and expense to comply with the absolute letter of the law just to engage in the completely optional activity of carrying a firearm are people who wish to be law-abiding. Criminals don't bother with such paperwork or bureaucratic hurdles. So licensing and registering firearm owners is only going to gain the cooperation of those people who are currently law-abiding and have no disqualifying criminal history, and such people are very unlikely to be involved in crime in the future, either.

This has proven to be so true that some states are dropping the requirement to have a permit for concealed carry at all. They can see that the people they are going to the trouble to track commit crimes so seldom that it's pretty much a waste of time to track them.

Banning felons and mentally ill people from bearing firearms is pretty narrow, but requiring every law-abiding gun owner to register and be licensed seems like much more of an infringement to me.

I agree with you.

I don't read the constitution as saying that mentally ill people and felons don't have the right to speak freely or practice their religion. Do you think they should be denied these rights? Why (in your view) is the 2nd different from the 1st in this respect?

The second amendment is arguably the most powerful of all the rights enumerated in the Constitution. It is the one that allows the People the tools with which they can kill other people. No other enumerated right has this power. I am not trouble that certain people in our country, namely certain kinds of criminals or mentally ill people cannot exercise their second amendment right.

no longer want or need the toys we had as infants. Until then we'll have the debate. Unfortunately, those who advocate for more CC and OC in populated areas will eventually ruin it for those with legitimate reasons to own guns. Right now gun sales are on the rise, but the Law of Diminishing Returns will kick in before too long and sanity will prevail.

Is there some "law of critical mass of guns", or some other unexplained mechanism whose workings we should be privy to?

I'm sure it will be repealed eventually when we grow up as a nation and no longer want or need the toys we had as infants.

I think this is a very idealistic point of view, and one not substantiated by examining human history.

Man is a create of desire. As a parent, I would say that the entire exercise of growing up is learning how to put the wants and needs of others before our own wants and desires. Children do not, cannot do this until they are about 3-4 years old. Prior to this time, they are completely self-centered creatures who expect everything to happen as they demand it to happen.

Throughout all of recorded human history we see examples of people, great and small, who could not or would not put the wants and needs of others ahead of their own. People who would and did do anything to sate their own personal desires no matter what the consequences were to others.

I submit to you that this is part of the human condition. There have always been people as I described above, and there is no reason at present to think that there will not always be such people.

And so long as we live in a world where there are such people, there will always be a need to stand against them, and a need for the tools that enable people to do so.

I agree with every word. Our nation itself is an experiment in idealism. The tools we use evolve as we evolve. So we need to rethink how we can devise tools to deal with "bad guys" without them being lethal. Instead we continue to make the tools of 200 years ago more lethal. If we can put a man on the moon, I'm sure we can develop less bloody tools for personal defense. That would be part of our growing up.

until that new technology comes alog?

We have electric cars that don't get the mileage many want, but hybrids are a good interim solution. maybe less lethal ammo would accomplish something similar. I'm not an engineer or scientist, but I'm sure we can do it.
Meanwhile, we can just go on shooting each other with weapons designed to do the most damage.
Or we could just lie down and thank the NRA for solving all our problems.

A market/faith based solution powered by cognitive dissonance. We can take that right to the streets to defend ourselves when we get mugged/raped/beaten/robbed.

Hire it done and ignore those that get hurt while the invisible hand of the market works its magic. Trickle down justice is a pretty elitist concept.

I suggest using smarts and technology and you twist that into "Market/faith based garble etc."
You obviously have no interest in finding a solution, just in baiting those who disagree with you. And enough with the elitist drivel. I'm not interested in trading insults. If you think there is a problem, let's discuss ways to fix it. If you think the answer is to carry more guns on the streets, then we have nothing more to discuss.

regarding less than lethal self defense has been done a million times. It has been explained to you at least once I bet.

Feel free to hope for a less than lethal self defense solution that works as well as a gun or produce one yourself. Don't expect others to get brutalized and killed waiting for it to happen. That's a "hire it done and fuck the little people who get screwed while my brilliant plan works" ELITIST attitude if there ever was one.

You don't seem to understand that nobody gives a fuck how do you or I or anyone else feels about guns on the street if they think they might have to defend their lives with one. There is nothing to discuss if the only thing you want to talk about are your feelings on the subject. Merely discussing your feelings is called therapy. This place is about firearms policy. Policy impacts people's lives in the real world. Produce something that works and prepare to defend it in concrete terms. Otherwise continue to be a whining scold and a whipping boy for some of the worst public policy blunders of the Democratic party in modern times.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You'll know those tools have arrived when the police substitute them for firearms.

Historically, the difference between a right and a privilege is that don't automatically possess a privilege; you have to earn it. However, once you've met the conditions to earn that privilege, it cannot be taken from you arbitrarily, if indeed, it can be taken from you at all.

For example, one of the earlier uses of the term "privilege" (literally "private law") stems from the Middle Ages. Cities gained autonomy from local feudal lords by being granted "town privileges" (aka "city rights") by a higher-ranking noble, usually a cash-strapped one in exchange for a hefty sum of money. Once the privileges had been thus purchased, the city could not be stripped of them.

And we see this in various activities for which governments now require a license. Being able to engage in the activity--operating a motor vehicle, carrying a concealed firearm, operating a business, etc.--may be a privilege, but that doesn't mean that the government has the authority to unilaterally revoke it.

If you want to drive a car on public roads, then in most places you need a license, registration, and insurance.

If you want to drive a car on private property, you do not need any of those things.

Firearms are very much the same.

Ceasing such erroneous projections will improve your credibility a bit.

Anything short of agreement and or capitulation with HIS definion of reasonable, is support for "absolutism".

lol

" your insistence on this right being absolute"

You just ascribed to someone else, a position they did not hold.

If you call the position they DO hold absolutist, which it looks to these eyes you did, my obesrvation is SPOT ON.

No right is unlimited.

You DO have the right to live in a community where they are not subjected to whizzing stray bullets.

That right however ends, before it interferes with OUR rights.

come after your right to own certain types of firearms?

Perhaps you can link to the post containing a statement saying that.

your 2a rights are more important than other people's right to pursue happiness in communities that aren't plagued with gunfire. That's no exaggeration; that's your actual position.

I'm going to start calling you Rachel JR. I asked how my legal exercise of the second amendment negatively affected you. I'm still waiting ofr a substantive response

Smart lady.

Your legal exercise doesn't bother me all that much. It creeps me out, but I can live with it. What bothers me is that your position (on the private seller loophole for instance) makes it easier for law-breakers to get guns. You are running interference for them, don't you see that?

Assuming you are a basically law abiding person, I don't see why you would object to universal licensing and registration. I don't see why you object to closing the private seller loophole. You don't actually want to sell a gun to an unbalanced individual or a felon, right? Presumably you desperately want to avoid that, since it only puts your rights and your life in jeopardy. The harm done to you with these things is minimal compared to the gains that these communities could reap.

the ones you attribute to maddow and then concede were made by McCain.

I could call these lies, but I don't think that's helful.

Is it ethically OK to lie to get your agenda passed. That's a yes, no or duck and weave question which are you going to do junior?

when the NRA lies about confiscation, is that OK?

Or when I watch the video and I see Rachel refer to glock "clips" (I know I know) as "10-12 rounds" was it OK for you to...ahem...misrepresent what she said (when you claimed she said 15 rounds)?

I'm against lying, but I'm against all lying. You don't appear to share that conviction.

Assuming you are a basically law abiding person, I don't see why you would object to universal licensing and registration.

Universal licensing and registration destroys anonymous firearm ownership and undermines the intent of the second amendment. I will never support that.

I don't see why you object to closing the private seller loophole. You don't actually want to sell a gun to an unbalanced individual or a felon, right? Presumably you desperately want to avoid that, since it only puts your rights and your life in jeopardy. The harm done to you with these things is minimal compared to the gains that these communities could reap.

I have no problem closing the private seller loophole, so long as it preserves anonymous firearm ownership.

One way to do this would be to run every person who applies for a driver's license or state-issued ID through NICS, unless they opt out, and, if they pass, issue them an FOID card, as Illinois does. If they have no use for the card they can simply throw it away.

I do a private background check on all persons I buy or sell from.

"your 2a rights are more important than other people's right to pursue happiness in communities that aren't plagued with gunfire."

No, my position is that my 2A rights are more PROTECTED than other people's right to pursue happiness in communities that aren't plagued with gunfire.

One of them is enumerated, and incorporated against the states.

The other is not.


Which are the actual facts of the matter, all of them.


Again, claiming someone holds a position they do not actually hold.

How honest, forthright, and in good faith, of you.

perhaps you could pursue happiness in a different community... Sounds ridiculous right?
Well it should, geographic location should NEVER be the determining factor in how rights are limited.

Yet people who want to defend themselves(you know the 2A folks), with firearms, who happen to live in
Chicago, New York, DC, That is their reality EVERY DAY.
How many innocents, in these cities, who just wanted to have the ability to protect themselves, will have to die,Get robbed, or beaten, at the hands of lawbreakers,
so people like you can enjoy your pursuit of happiness.

Why are your absolute rights so much more important than my very limited rights in these cities?

we are talking about the will of the people in these communities.

The people who want to defend themselves are no less able to do so. They just have to abide by the laws.

Again and again, your right to own a gun somehow supercedes the right to pursue happiness of the majority of people in these communities.

of the people in these communities,bans the ownership and carrying of guns, and in so doing, infringes on my 2A rights, you're ok with that?

How would you feel if the people in these communities decided to ban some of our other civil liberties.

Maybe we can have some "no free speech" zones in some of these communities. that might curb some of that pesky incendiary

speech, that is causing so much of this inner city violence.

Sounds about as ridiculous as banning guns.

Banning my ability to carry a firearm, would definately lessen my ability to defend myself against someone with a weapon or who is physically stronger than myself.

My 2A rights don't currently supercede ANY of your rights either perceived or actual, to imply so is dishonest at best.

My 2A rights don't include using my firearm in any way, to cause or perpetrate crime.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.66

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.714#stat.624.714

Some relevant statutes from my home stats, none of which allow my to commit crime, while exercising my rights.

licensing and registration, closing the private seller loophole, even banning of certain types of rifles, doesn't materially affect your ability to defend yourself.

"My 2A rights don't currently supercede ANY of your rights either perceived or actual, to imply so is dishonest at best."

They certainly do. The NRA crowd seeks to impose its will, its own narrow interpretation, in such a way as to deprive others of their right to the pursuit of happiness (because stray bullets are a significant impediment to happiness).

My 2A rights do not allow me to break the law. They do not allow my to send "stray bullets" through your town.
If you can't persue happiness due to the effects of stray bullets, that is a law enforcement issue , not a 2A issue.
Perhaps you could bring your concerns of stray bullets up with your local law enforcement agency and ask them to
do a better job of apprehending the criminals who send stray bullets through your community.
Most communities throughout the USA, have no preemption laws handed down from the their respective states in regards to discharging a weapon.

for your reading enjoyment. http://www.handgunlaw.us/updates.htm

Or feel free to Google (state preemtion of firearms laws)

runs interference for those who do break the law. Your position puts other people at risk of bodily harm every single goddamn day.

My second amendment position is much more absolute, then the recent Heller and MdDonald decisions, however i still have to follow the law of the land.

Would you like to send me to prison for exercising my 2A rights, just because someone else decides to break the law?

No thanks, my due process applies to me and my actions , not someone elses, who i have no control over.

Maybe we ought to shut down the internet, since us computer and internet users(exercising our 1A rights) are running interference for criminals

who want to watch Kiddie porn?

how about we instill a licensing and registration scheme for internet activity,closing the private computer seller loophole, even banning of certain types of laptops and tablets.
My god we can't let just anyone own a computer, and get on the internet, with out some serious government restrictions, now can we?

Heh.

My second amendment position is much more absolute, then the recent Heller and MdDonald decisions, however i still have to follow the law of the land.

wow. When scalia isn't far enough to the right...lol.

"Would you like to send me to prison for exercising my 2A rights, just because someone else decides to break the law?"

No, I want to prevent criminals from getting guns. It's really not about you. You aren't important to me. The people who die everyday as a consequence of your extremist positions...they are important to me.

Maybe we ought to shut down the internet, since us computer and internet users(exercising our 1A rights) are running interference for criminals who want to watch Kiddie porn?

You realize that there are laws about kiddie porn, and my understanding is that people usually get busted when they try to trade various porn images with other pre-verts. The internet IS constantly monitored in ways that gun shows certainly aren't. See...you can sell your gun (with no oversight or consequences) to a felon and there isn't any punishment for that whatsoever, provided you remember to lie and say that you lost the gun.

This is not a Right/left issue. it's a tyrany/liberty issue. i can't help it if you let right/left idiology cloud your views.

"I want to prevent criminals from getting guns. It's really not about you. You aren't important to me The people who die everyday as a consequence of your extremist positions...they are important to me."
i don't really care if you don't find my life important, in fact i expected nothing less. My extremist positions, like i have said before,
has nothing whatsoever to do with the dead people that are so important to you. again i will assert, MY 2A RIGHTS DO NOT ALLOW, CONDONE,
FACILITATE, OR PERPETRATE, ANY UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY. They never have. they never will. But thanks for conflating me with murderers, i really appreciate that.



"You realize that there are laws about kiddie porn."
Yes i do.
so why are you not advocating for the restrictions on the tools that make it possible for people to commit these crimes. you know if these criminals were prevented from getting cameras , and computers then surely these crimes would cease to exist right?

Of course they wouldn't cease to exist duh!!!. Criminals would just find other ways to get their hands on cameras and computers. and only innocent computer users would suffer the extra burden of the costs of registration and licensing to own a legal camera and computer.

the tyranny of gun advocates over the liberty of citizens in crime-ridden areas.

Like any other civil right, is always a positive to team liberty.

When I walk around with a sidearm in a holster, doing my grocery shopping, no-one elses liberty is diminished, unless they choose to diminish it themselves.

because that part of the interview shows very clearly a community that is being oppressed by the gun lobby.

You've got two fallacies going here:

2) You are repeating an argument from authority as if it were established fact.

1) You and Councilman Burgess apparently feel that the inhabitants of Homewood are incapable of agency and those pesky guns

are somehow putting a geas on those who own them.



I wonder if those actually using guns in a criminal manner have anythingto do with the problems in his district?

The 'gun lobby' carries as much blame for the crime problems in Homewood as Triple A does for drunk and incompetent drivers.

1) You and Councilman Burgess apparently feel that the inhabitants of Homewood are incapable of agency

Actually the councilman discusses the law passed in his community and the fact that the NRA-bought republican state leadership stopped it from going into effect.

If you have something to dispute what the councilman said, please produce it.

The gun lobby runs interference for these criminals, pushing to make sure there are LOTS of guns available.

I very specifically addressed the 12 minute segment in which Rachel and her fake republican lap dog (Did you catch Meghan calling it an "official date")wandered through the NRA convention fear mongering and spreading lies.

it might have been difficult to watch the man describing the disaster your idlogy has wrought on his home town.

or the will of the politicians. If the people are misinformed or uninformed is it still their will? It is a universal question. My guess is that most do not have an opinion either way. Even if they did, the choice seems to be anti gun Republican or anti gun Democrat.

your 2a rights are more important than other people's right to pursue happiness in communities that aren't plagued with gunfire. That's no exaggeration; that's your actual position.

My actual position is this: No matter how many people commit crimes with firearms, I will never tolerate their actions being used as an excuse to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms.

To put a finer point on it: Even if you live in a shithole of a community plagued by incessant inter-gang warfare, with shootings every single night, absolutely my second amendment rights trump your right to happiness trying to live in such a shithole. I will not tolerate the actions of the criminals in your community being used as an excuse to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms.

I'm not going to allow the second-amendment baby to be tossed out with the criminal bathwater.

in that video?

I understand Mccain doing this , she's neo con it's to be expected. Rachel is one of us she's supposed to be better than that .

In the video rachel said things that have been proven false. Not just a little false totaslly false and she knew it when she said it. because of my expertise I caught the false statments ( see how knowing what the fuck you're talking about can be a good thing? ) where they sailed right over your head

She has your position on gun rights. She's your gal. She isn't so awful either, opposes bigotry against gay people and the worst that the republicans have to offer.

Rachel's video was factual. You found some minor points to quibble with so you totally ignored her key points. That's on you.

I'm all about standard capacity magazines, sending the AWB to the ash heap of history, and niot helping Rachel Maddow push her antigun agenda. Sounds more like Mccain is your girl

Wow.

She states over and over again "no one needs a 'semi-assault' rifle" and goes on and on about her friends in law enforcement who say that extended magazines and "semi assault weapons' are unnecessary.

Why don't you actually watch the segment before telling me how wrong my interpretation of it is

where she says she supports the AWB? Kinda tough ain't it. As you have pointed out, she isn't the brightest gal. Ask her straight up if she wants to bring back the AWB, and you know as well as I what her answer would be.

She's an NRA member for chrissakes.

And 3 term LIEING republican mayor paul helmke is one of you.


He has your position on gun rights. Hes your guy.


See, we can play that game too.

"Rachel's video was factual."

Saying it was, does not make it so, no matter how many times you say it, no matter how many different words you use.


Its been SHOWN that there were untruths contained in it.

You as much as admitted it down thread a piece.


Why do you continue on?

gangs on the other hand..how about pushing for rico prosecutions of gang members? If you wear the colors or the tats and one member is charged with one violent act, every member is charged with the same crime...within a few years, no more gang problems, no more whizzing bullets.

your right to pursue happiness.

On the other hand if you get laws enacted that prohibit me from owning guns then you
ARE infringing on my right to pursue happiness if target shooting provides that happiness for me. It can also infringe on my ability to protect myself.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is. But at the risk of sounding pedantic (something I acknowledge I'm prone to), even if there were a codified right to the pursuit of happiness, that doesn't translate to a right to actually acquire it.

Municipalities can't control what happens outside their borders, nor should they be able to.

Ban guns in a city, criminals will just bring them in from outside the city.

"Gun free zones" only work for law-abiding people in that zone.

So you've restricted the rights of law-abiding people to protect themselves, while doing nothing about the criminal element.

You call that a solution?

I have posted several times about ideas I think are reasonable. Don't feel like going through the list again.

So you've restricted the rights of law-abiding people to protect themselves, while doing nothing about the criminal element.

Incorrect. I have just empowered police to charge people who are not law abiding with firearms possession in violation of these laws, for breaking any gun law that the municipality chooses to pass.

Your positions have effects on real people's lives. This isn't academic. People are dying. Neighborhoods turning in to war zones.

But you need to be practical when advocating for solutions.

You can try to go after some of the particular tools that criminals use in their endeavors, or you can try to do something about the underlying causes of why people resort to crime in the first place.

Maybe we're approaching this from the wrong angle. Maybe instead of passing more restrictive laws, we should try liberalizing certain laws, like our failed War on Drugs.

How much of the gang-banger violence in inner-cities is funded by illegal drug money, or the pursuit thereof?

I am practical. I want solutions that are the least invasive. I'm open to ideas from gun people, as long as those ideas aren't putting even more guns on the streets of my city.

No matter what these ideas are, the NRA will oppose them. Certain posters here make it a common practice to attack those who want practical solutions, doing the NRA's bidding.

Ending the drug war seems as distant a goal as it was when I was a teenager. Sounds like a great idea, would cause certain kinds of gun crimes to wane. We would still have the spousal shootings, which is why I think spousal notification is a good idea.

I'm open to ideas from gun people, as long as those ideas aren't putting even more guns on the streets of my city.

No matter what these ideas are, the NRA will oppose them.

The problem here is that you are against putting even more guns on the streets of your city - regardless of who those people are. And that's not fair.

Nearly everyone, the NRA included, is against putting more guns on the streets of your city in the hands of criminals and crazy people. But we are not going to tolerate trying to prevent firearms getting into the hands of everyone else in an attempt to keep them out of the hands of the bad people.

The problem here is that you are against putting even more guns on the streets of your city - regardless of who those people are.

Strawman bullshit.

Nearly everyone, the NRA included, is against putting more guns on the streets of your city in the hands of criminals and crazy people. But

Yeah...BUT. Lol. You're against more guns on the streets of our cities...but you're doubly opposed to doing a single thing about it.

Hint, it isn't a strawman argument when you can quote the guy saying it.

*snort*

*barf*

I imagine it's tough for you to watch, what with the disaster your ideology has brought to that town.

The councilman said:

"first of all, certain guns should not be on the street, period. Not in the urban community. Second of all, I think there should be strict laws, responsible laws, so that the handgun owner has the gun, maintains the gun, and is qualified to have the gun. You don't want mentally ill people, people with criminal backgrounds, none of them should have guns, lets be honest. These are common sense, every day, 90% of people you talk to will agree with it. But I believe their interests are more political...their interest is not the lives of these people."

And he's certainly right, especially about that last sentence. Their interest (your buddies at the NRA) is not in the lives of these people.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/41030180#42939044

"Third of all, I would eliminate any guns coming into the city from gun shows, and things like that. Certainly, we need to find a way to remove the guns off the street."

But since you quoted the councilman's other statement, how do you read "certain guns should not be on the street, period" as different from "aren't putting even more guns on the streets of my city"?

the quote I cited shows his actual position. The quote you showed is a somewhat garbled restatement of the "closing the gunshow loophole" position.

how do you read "certain guns should not be on the street, period"

Ak-47's and M-16's have no place on the streets of Homewood. Grenade launchers and MG42's have no place there either.

Violate federal gun laws like felon in possession, you go to federal court so some local DA can't plead it down. Like Project Exile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile
Beyond that:
move good jobs back in those areas (I don't buy the politician's theory.) give them an alternative to the gangs.
programs to move the talented entrepreneurs to more legitimate business models
pour money in schools, give good teachers incentives to go there, and combat anti intellectualism
improve community relations with police
end the drug war, take away their money and gangs will be back to using knives and chains like before Nixon's war on drugs. They will still be killing each other, but antis don't care as long as a gun is not involved.
I can think of these off the top of head and I'm just some gun toting, tree hugging hick from Wyoming.
Which one of these would the NRA oppose? The drug one maybe.
Domestic shootings are rare, so say criminologists who detest the NRA and vis versa.

What are your practical solutions? Your bias against gun ownership does not lead to practical solutions let alone solutions. Registration? Show one country or state that lowered it's crime rate via gun control. Each case I find is
New Zealand abandoned it because it was expensive theater. Then there is Canada's level of non compliance or civil disobedience depending on how you look at it.

:shrug:

It is already against the law for criminals to have guns. Your problem is "catch and release" prosecutors in big cities. They routinely bargain away gun charges or fail to prosecute.

Cop killers in Philadelphia are but one example. Twenty-six pages pages of rap sheets. Dozens of arrests for "felon in possession of a fire arm" and not one single solitary prosecution for the gun charges. If they had been in prison on those charges they wouldn't be out killing cops.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/one-eyed%20fat%20man/10

How about another classic example of anti-gun hypocrisy? Annette Stevens, president of Springfield, Illinois chapter of the Million Mom March was arrested for possession of an illegal gun that had its serial number ground off, and dealing drugs. She plead guilty on the drug charges in exchange for dropping the gun charges. She gets a 3 year sentence and will be out in 8 months instead of 10 years on the gun charges and the prosecutor gets to count it as a conviction. What a deal!!

Why do you tolerate it? Your prosecutors routinely let career criminals pass on gun offenses which would locked them up for decades, in exchange for a guilty plea on some lesser crime. Do you really have such a shortage of criminals you need them back on the street so cops have someone to catch? Is it worth having some thug plead guilty to a 6 month sentence to avoid having to try convict him for a 10 year one?

New York and Chicago were crime-infested cesspools in 1870, in 1970 and it's a dollar to a donut bet they still will in 2070. New York's corrupt Democratic machine, Tammany Hall, championed the first ban on handguns with the Sullivan Act in 1911 so the Irish thugs wouldn't have as much competition from the Italian thugs. Nothing has really changed in a 100 years except the thugs have more diversity.

The key ingredient to having a crime infested cesspool is criminals. New York, Chicago, DC, LA etc have more than their share and breed more everyday. The thugs will always have guns; this won't change their numbers or the ease with which criminals disregard any law they choose.

Ask the guy who sells you your weekly supply of weed if he can get you a gun. Perhaps he can explain the market forces that assure him customers for his contraband.

Are you going to allow local communities to pass laws that discriminate against minorities? How about letting some places pass laws allowing for separate bathrooms again?

Nope. The Supreme Court has ruled, and the 2nd Amendment is now incorporated against the states under the 14th Amendment.

Like ones creating "sundown towns," for example? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town)
How about California Proposition 14 of 1963? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_%281963%29)
How about laws prohibiting sodomy?

The members of the communities that adopted such laws in the past certainly felt they were appropriate, though Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill would probably have regarded them as expressions of the tyranny of the majority, and James Madison would have used similar language.

The more the merrier!

There was a lot more than gun violence that killed Homewood.

White flight.

City not having the funds to tear down or attract buyers to repair abandoned buildings. Or to help residents to fix up their housing.

Drugs.

A reputation justly or unjustly that keeps people from even thinking about going in to Homewood, let alone starting a business. Heck that dates back to at least the 60's. We have other sections similiar reps. Hill District (btw served as the inspiration for Hill Street Blues), sections of the North Side, Fairywood, sections of Garfield and other areas. There's a lot of white prejudice and fear in Pittsburgh. This is a very segregated city to this day!

Loss of good paying blue collar jobs.

East Liberty just a couple miles down the road from Homewood had a similiar rep but now with many businesses moving in it is attracting people to those businesses from other areas of Pittsburgh especially Shadyside and Oakland.

You can drive up and down the rivers of Pittsburgh area and see once prosperous mill towns that look like bombed cities of Europe in WWII. Alliquipa, Braddock, Duquesne, McKeesport, Clairton, etc.

Poverty and drugs and gun violence. We have to beat back the first two and then maybe we can beat the third. We have to somehow show young men(and some women) that slights and disputes cannot be settled with a gun. That there is a future beyond death at a young age or prison.

Unfortunately we have a generation of young African-Americans who are doing the wet dreams of the KKK by killing and maiming one another.

if so why are the communities being destroyed are in places where people don't generally own guns? My community was not destroyed and almost everyone had guns.

watch the video. Lots of guns are owned by people in that community. The gun violence is driving business out.

Because gun violence has been trending downward for decades.

give it a fucking rest. Watch the fucking video.

You are repeatedly asserting that it is happening. Back up your assertions, it should take 5 seconds.

it says homewood data is not available

http://www.clrsearch.com/Homewood_Demographics/PA/Crime-Rate

Give it a fucking rest with your bullshit.

Facsinating, eh?

Especially when it is obvious that you have less than nothing supporting them.

what do you have? Bupkis.

How about the CDC?
"firearms-related* injuries in the United States have declined since 1993"
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Or the CDC...
"Based on data from the Supplementary Homicide Report compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and reports from some cities, homicide rates have been stable or declining since 1993"
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00042178.htm

I'm not so sure I can totally agree with you on that. Interesting that you'd say that given your point of view, but I'd say that's a dubious assertion you're making there. Correlation does not mean causation.

The councilman has lost friends and family to this madness. He lives in that town. He is a credible source. You, on the other hand...

I'll give you some time to read the articles before you start running your mouth with more unsupported hogwash.

I've given you CDC data proving that you are wrong. The councilman has provided nothing but unsupported assertions that are in direct opposition to provable facts.

They obviously contain no data on Homewood, PA. They contain nothing that contradicts the councilman. In fact, let me quote the articles:

The Task Force's review of firearms laws found insufficient evidence to determine whether the laws reviewed reduce (or increase) specific violent outcomes (Table). Much existing research suffers from problems with data, analytic methods, or both. Further high-quality research is required to establish the relationship between firearms laws and violent outcomes. Potential areas for further investigation will be discussed in detail in an upcoming article in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine

That's pretty lukewarm, takes no position whatsoever and for good reason...there are many factors that influence violent crime rates.

Homicide and assaultive violence now are recognized as global public health problems. Although the U.S. homicide rate ranks higher overall and higher for males aged 15-24 years than those of other highly industrialized countries (8,9), in many less- industrialized countries homicide rates exceed those in the United States (8). To address this global problem, in May 1996 the 190 nations of the World Health Organization (WHO) passed a resolution declaring violence a worldwide public health problem, urging member states to assess the public health impact of violence, and requesting the Director-General of WHO to initiate a science-based public health approach to violence prevention. This resolution provides a scientific framework for action throughout the world addressing global violence.

What about "public heath problems" is hard for you to understand?

Now granted I was mocking you, since you were just providing links to lengthy articles that didn't address the subject at hand (violent crime in Homewood, PA). I though it was very funny that you provided articles that could be used to support my position, if I wanted to make bad arguments. Heck, it is funny.

Tell me do you think these articles provided stats on Homewood, PA?

The first shows that there is no evidence that gun laws will reduce gun crime. Now that you know this, if you say otherwise than you are lying.

Both support the assertion that gun crime has been trending downward.

The first shows that there is no evidence that gun laws will reduce gun crime.

Wrong. As the quote I selected shows, the first articles declines to take any definitive position on the issue, since multiple factors are involved. That's the sane position.

Both support the assertion that gun crime has been trending downward.

Since the 1994 AWB. That's why I'm teasing you.

Still nothing about Homewood though.

you can pick up your toys and go home. No hard feelins.

Did tha AWB have any effect on the rate of decrease during or after the time it was in effect?

The piece it entitled "Ricky Burgess, Pittsburg councilman, drives the streets of homewood neighborhood in Pittsburg and explains why the inability of the city to restrict guns has hurt residents and businesses:


Heres some quotes from it by the good councilman, that speak directly to whether his "word" means much at all:

"Why does individual citizens need ak-47s and m-16s and ar-14s"

"I don't see any need to have assault rifles in the city of pittsburg..."

"I believe the constitution does give us the right to bear arms, but tell me where it says we have a right to pack an ak-47, show me where it says we have a right to have an m-16, or we could have submachineguns walking an urban neighborhood"

My question for the good councilman would be as follows:

Isn't it already illegal for 15 and 16 year olds to have handguns?

How is Pitsburg inable to enforce that law?

Isn't it illegal for most people to have assault rifles and submachineguns?

How is Pittsburg Inable to enforce that law?

If theyre inable to enforce those laws, how will they be able to enforce any of the things you propose?




The good congressman, goes on at length about guns, but really doesn't touch on the people whos hands are unlawfully possessing and using them.

And that reminds me of a conversation involving one of my most favorite fictional characters:

"Tell me minister - if I were to strike you, which would you be angry at; the hand that struck you - or the heart that commanded the hand to strike?... The hand has no choice but to do as it is told, it is the heart that carries that burden. But everyone knows the true source of pain is neither the hand nor the heart - it is the mouth, is it not?"


Instead, our good councilman blames the nra, and the gun.

I was going to add something but thought better of it

An entirely unearned sense of self-righteousness, combined with a studied disregard for truth.


From Savonarola to McCarthy to Pat Robertson to Josh Sugarman, down to Ricky Burgess; all essentially the same, differing only in

that which they seek to demonize...

That's why I was able to quote it specifically.

So if she wasn't lying you should be able to prove me wrong easily

Get hot

First WTF is a "semi-assault rifle" ?

Loughner wouldn't have been able to buy his extended "clips" if the NRA hadn't forced the repeal of the AWB in 2004

The AWB wasn't repealed, it ended just as the original law provided because no one could prove it had any effect on crime

"extended capacity" magazines wereavailable the law only banned the manufacture of new ones and did nothing to halt the sale of the millions already in circulation.

Semi-assault rifle (again WTF is that?)= M4s on the streets of America

An M4 is a highly regulated NFA item and is generally not available to civilians.

If you want to buy a gun w/out a background check go to a gunshow

First note that Meghan McCain had no clue what Rachel was talking about.

A licensed firearms dealer is required by law to fill out a form 4473 on any gun he sells regardless of location. A private sale is a private sale regardless of location closing the "gunshow loophole" amounts to a ban on private sales

Normal Glock magazines only hold 10/12 rounds anyway

Rachel flat out lied on this one standard Glock magazine hold 15 rounds

So,after watching this, why should I believe anything Rachel says
about guns?

1) obviously refers to semi-automatic assault rifles.

2) The AWB was not renewed due to lobbying by the NRA, which had the same effect as repeal. Semantics.

3) "extended capacity" magazines were available the law only banned the manufacture of new ones and did nothing to halt the sale of the millions already in circulation

The AWB could not constitutionally make it illegal to own magazines that were purchased legally. You can't complain that the law was not unconstitutional. My understanding is that the AWB did make transfer or sale of extended magazines illegal...at least this is according to the pro-gun people I have chatted with here who objected to such a provision. Hopefully they weren't lying to me.

4) M4s on the streets of America. I don't recall any specific reference to an M4. I'll have to watch the video again to see where this reference was, if it was there.

5)If you want to buy a gun w/out a background check go to a gunshow

There is no doubt that this is the case. Not only is there ample evidence all around us that guns have been purchased without background checks at these gun shows...Mayor Bloomberg proved it again in stunning fashion recently. Gunshows are places where unlicensed sellers are free to sell large numbers of guns to irresponsible owners.

6) A private sale is a private sale regardless of location closing the "gunshow loophole" amounts to a ban on private sales

Bullshit. A private seller could and should be required to follow laws applicable to licensed sellers. There are laws, which vary from state to state, regulating private sale of cars. This has not led to a ban on private sales of automobiles.

7) Normal Glock magazines only hold 10/12 rounds anyway. Rachel flat out lied on this one standard Glock magazine hold 15 rounds

OoOooOohhhhh 3 rounds. On this basis you're calling her a liar?

Much of your problems with the report are semantic, nibbling at the fringe of larger arguments. Now that I have responded to these, I wonder can you address the most important claims (from my point of view) made in the report:

A) The NRA stands between the people and sensible gun law reform.

B) Persons can purchase a variety of guns, and then sell them (straw purchase) to persons who could not pass a background check. After the gun is used in a crime, the straw buyer can then simply claim that they "lost" the weapon.

C) Gun violence is a major contributor to urban decay and the systematic economic destruction of working class neighborhoods.

why should I believe anything Rachel says about guns?

Let's be honest here, you weren't exactly approaching this issue with an open mind. You were looking to pick at nits and ignore the substance.

1) An assault rifle is by definition selective fire. You CAN'T have a semi-automatic assault rifle.

2) Being repealed and expiring are materially different things. Saying it was repealed is factually incorrect.

3) Standard capacity magazines (10+) were still legal to sell and were widely available during the entire AWB period.

4) Watch the video again. You are wrong.

5) "Gunshows are places where unlicensed sellers are free to sell large numbers of guns to irresponsible owners". Total fabrication. Anyone selling large numbers of guns must get licensed as a dealer to remain legal.

6) Private sellers can not follow laws applicable to dealers, because they CAN'T access the NICS system.

7) Doesn't matter to me either way

A) The NRA backs the vast majority of gun regulations and has been instrumental in passing reasonable gun control laws. Age restrictions, machine gun restrictions, barrel restrictions, background checks, and increased safety training....

B) People can do that. Do you have a reasonable way to stop this?

C) Gun violence is a symptom of the problems in urban America not a cause. The single biggest problem is that the productive gains of Urban Americans is siphoned away, leaving them without enough to support themselves and their community.

1) I'm told that a person with the right expertise can make semi-autos into full autos. Persons with that expertise and criminal syndicates who can afford to hire them can make these conversions. Problem not solved.

2) Being repealed and expiring are materially different things. Saying it was repealed is factually incorrect.

Semantics. The effect is the same. At worst a misstatement, not a lie.

3) The act separately defined and banned "large capacity ammunition feeding devices", which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than an arbitrary number of rounds and which up to the time of the act had been considered normal or factory magazines. These ammunition feeding devices were also referred to in the media and popular culture as "high capacity magazines or feeding devices". Depending on the locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a "normal" capacity and "high" capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds.

4) I will have to watch the video again. Not sure why this is really all that important.

5)"Total fabrication. Anyone selling large numbers of guns must get licensed as a dealer to remain legal."

Bullshit. Watch the bloomberg video and see stacks and stacks of guns offered for sale by "private sellers" obviously exploiting this loophole. Take 30 people selling 40 guns apiece and you've got huge numbers of guns sold to godknowswho by "private sellers."

6) Private sellers can not follow laws applicable to dealers, because they CAN'T access the NICS system. So let's make it easier but also mandatory for them to do so...over the objections of the NRA of course! The fact that "private" sellers are not subject to NICS checks is a gaping loophole in the system.

7) Doesn't matter to me either way So then you agree that this is hardly the basis to claim that maddow is a liar.

A) The NRA backs the vast majority of gun regulations Bahahahahahahahahaha

B) Eliminate the private seller loophole. Make it a felony not to report "lost guns" within a certain time frame. Investigate persons who "lost" 10 (picking an arbitrary number here) or more guns in a certain time frame.

C) Gun violence is a symptom of the problems in urban America not a cause

Gun violence is one of several causes of urban decay...as shown in the Maddow interview with the councilman, as he points to each of the businesses that left the community due to gun violence.

) I'm told that a person with the right expertise can make semi-autos into full autos. Persons with that expertise and criminal syndicates who can afford to hire them can make these conversions. Problem not solved.

Care to cite some examples of this happening?

I put myself through college working as a machinist I could make a real AK if I had a machine shop to do it in, I would be much easier to just make the full auto lower than to "convert" one. It would take me about a week to ge tthe first piece right then I'd be in business.

yet I don't see this happening all over America unless you come up w/ those cites

No longer involved in the industry...but anyway...

"I put myself through college working as a machinist I could make a real AK if I had a machine shop to do it in, I would be much easier to just make the full auto lower than to "convert" one. It would take me about a week to ge tthe first piece right then I'd be in business."


It is indeed interesting, how many people have no clue of "how things work" in the nuts and bolts sense, where guns are concerned, and make all sorts of assumptions based on such cluelessness.

I have never fired a gun, never intend to fire a gun, never intend to become an expert on guns. They are revolting to me. Playing the "i'm an expert card" doesn't really work on me. I'm just not impressed.

Cites:

http://www.hackcanada.com/ice3/misc/ak47mod.txt

http://www.weaponscombat.com/full-auto-conversion

http://www.savvysurvivor.com/full_auto_and_autoburst_modifica.htm

It is called slam firing and it likely to cause the bullets to fire out of battery which will cause the gun to explode.

The other two don't explain how the process is supposed to be carried out. It is likely to require a large milling machine, a welder, and a heat treating oven. Which is enough to build your own gun from scratch.

Just sayin'

Oh...but playing the "im ignorant of the subject matter and damn proud of it" card is supposed to impress?

Nobody here claims conversions can't be done, however, since you seem to think its a problem:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30



In it, officer Leroy L pyle, a San Jose california police officer explains the facts of automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

Also Detective Jimmy Trahin talks about converting semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic:

It appears this information has been provided to you before. Why do you continue to say the things you say in spite of it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x371773


Did you really think we'd forgotten?

Come on, did ya?

As another DU poster has said - and this is someone NOT on the pro gun side (which makes it all the sweeter):

It's deeply saddening that someone would consider his/her opinions about an important public policy issue to be worth spewing in public when s/he is so totally ignorant of the subject matter, and so deeply uninterested in learning the minimum necessary to have an opinion of even minimal value.

(It is obviously illegal to modify an AK-47 in this way. Don't!)

So where are the cites for all the folks that have done this (highly illegal) conversion?

he says "don't" and then proceeds to tell you how to make the conversion. The claim that there is a hard line between semi-auto and full auto is debunked. It's bullshit.

People who do highly illegal things aren't going to provide citations for me.

and get back to us if you can still type w/ stumps

since I don't want the things anywhere near me. I was referring to those persons with the expertise.

as far as the National Firearms Act of 1934 and ATF are concerned, if it can be easily converted to a machine gun, it is a machine gun.

Slam firing is insanely dangerous and very likely to cause a detonation out of battery causing the rifle to explode in your face.

doesn't mean I'm playing the "expert card" I also posses the skill set to make

Airplane seats , seat belts, ejector pins for A10s, machine gun parts for A10s, Titanium femoral nails , screws , fuels pumps, Transmission parts, Flanges foe AC Units, switch plates for rail roads, Couplers for rail roads. Nail beds for rail roads Otoscope parts and any other of a hundered different things I made as a machinist

and all others who presume to discount other people's opinions based on the fact that we are not firearms experts. I can see the mangled bodies of the victims just fine.

you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to converting weapons. Actually you don't know WTF you're talking about most times you open your mouth about weapons

Looks like I win.

I only needed to show that the conversion was possible. I did that.

I stated i know how to do it (still easier to just make one from scratch) what I asked you for was a cite of people doing this. Surely ther must be a news story about hoards or FA weapons being confiscated somewhere (in America)

there is no hard line between semiauto rifles and full auto rifles. A person with expertise can make the conversion. I don't need to cite specific crimes committed with these weapons, I only need to prove that it is dishonest to claim that there's this huge distinction, because there is not.

one's legal one isn't that right ther is huge. it's also not some thing you can do at home w/ your erector set. You need a specialized machine that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and you need some one like me to program it (I will grant that you could do it on a manual machine though)

Crack heads are not turning out full auto AKs in their kitchens

could they afford to make these conversions? Sure could.

for 50 bucks a pop in Central/ South America and smuggle them in w/ the dope.

warning I am about to play the expert card again

In order to set up a machine shop you need specialized power sources ( You can't just plug a HAAS VF3 into 110 and fire it up) and heavy duty concrete pads ( not just a garage floor) to put the machine on. And people that know WTF their doing to make the actual guns

ETA and again, please show that this is a common problem

nothing changes. The make believe fiction that there is a hard line is a bullshit lie. Please don't trot that out again.

BTW I still only need to prove that it's possible fior you to rape some one and out comne the loppers

That really isn't funny to me.

The solutions I have in mind aren't really focused on magazine capacity or specific types of firearms. As I said, I think there are multiple flaws with the AWB. So far, solutions that sound good to me would include:

waiting period accompanied by spousal notification

universal registration and licensing

eliminating the private seller loophole

global solutions including ending the drug war and tarrifs to protect US manufacturing.

But of course as I will continue to reiterate--the NRA stands in the way of any sensible solution.

when I respond to you in good faith and your reaction is to make veiled suggestions that I'm a rapist, I think that shows what you're all about. It also reeks of desperation. It's sad.

I'm done with you.

aiting period accompanied by spousal notification
No

universal registration and licensing
no

eliminating the private seller loophole

global solutions including ending the drug war and tarrifs to protect US manufacturing.

Yes

But of course as I will continue to reiterate--the NRA stands in the way of any sensible solution.

First show me a sensible solution

I guess I should take comfort that you managed to not accuse me of rape in this post.

I said you had the necessary equipment

thanks. I misunderstood. FYI, my cawk is attached to me since birth. I didn't buy it at a gun show, I don't use it for self-defense or for hunting. It's a piss poor analogy, and its not funny to me.

Highly restricted Machine gun, assault rifles, and street sweepers- Backed by the NRA
Age restrictions to keep children from buying guns- Backed by the NRA
Required background checks- Backed by the NRA
Limiting the mentally unfit from access to guns- Backed by the NRA
The list goes on.

"Required background checks- Backed by the NRA"

Not for "private sellers."

That's great that the NRA was less awful in the 1930's and 1960's. Like all organizations it grows and changes. At this point the NRA is a monster, a right wing political advocacy organization that pays speaking fees for Glenn Beck and Sarah palin as they scream "soshilizt."

The NRA is in the way.

Is there a single politician who stands for this from either party or associated to any organization?

except the NRA is in the way. dangit.

the NRA opposes closing the private seller loophole. That goes without saying. The NRA opposes anything reasonable.

Cite proof that you have a cerebral cortex.

If they are against it why can't you produce a single scrap of evidence to support it?

House File 2960 and Senate File 2659 would force private sales at gun shows to go through background checks. Gun prohibitionists, such as State Representative, falsely claim that a large number of criminals get their guns from gun shows; however, the most recent federal study on gun shows put the figure at only 0.7 percent. This effort is a stepping stone for gun control advocates seeking to ban all private sales, even among family and friends.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5467

So there ya go.

"There is no gun show "loophole." Since 1938, any person "engaged in the business of selling firearms" must register with the federal government. In 1968 all such persons were required to obtain a federal firearms license. Since 1998, dealers have been required to submit all prospective gun buyers to a National Instant Check System (NICS) background check conducted by the FBI or a state agency. This requirement applies at gun shows and all other locations, all of the time."


10 secs on the first page of google.
http://nrawol.net/255/lapierre-endorses-trigger-locks-and-closing-gunshow-loophole

Bravo!

They deny what Bloomberg proved is the case. There is no regulation of private sellers, the laughable claim is that while they sell guns, they aren't "engaged in the business of selling firearms." Selling a gun, but not "engaged" in selling it. Just fucking laughable the lies they tell.

No NICS check. These are the facts, no matter what lies the NRA tells. Note the quote I provided above. Absolute opposition to closing the loophole, even denying it exists despite the obvious fact that it does.

The second proved the the NRA and Wayne Lapierre personally want restrictions on private sellers.

If you are going to openly tell lies repeatedly when confronted with undeniable proof, than I'm not interested in discussing this with you.

The first line denied there was a problem, and the second line denied there was a problem. And AGAIN:

House File 2960 and Senate File 2659 would force private sales at gun shows to go through background checks. Gun prohibitionists, such as State Representative, falsely claim that a large number of criminals get their guns from gun shows; however, the most recent federal study on gun shows put the figure at only 0.7 percent. This effort is a stepping stone for gun control advocates seeking to ban all private sales, even among family and friends.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5467

So there ya go. The NRA is opposed to closing the gun show loophole.

And the NRA website calling for restrictions to private sales. If you want to say otherwise it is perfectly clear that you are a liar and I have no interest in discussing this with someone who isn't interested in discussing events without telling known falsehoods.

The first words of the quote you show me are "There is no gun show loophole."

The quote you provided merely denies that there is a problem. It simply denies the existence of the loophole. That's what the words say.

The quote I provided shows the current position of the NRA-ILA. Namely fearmongering and slippery sloping argments against closing the loophole which Wayne pretends does not exist.

Why is it that you fellas have to make this personal?

If you read the text of the bill, you will see that it would merely require the carrying out of a background check on all sales, but require all sales to go through an FFL. I quote:

Emphasis in bold mine. The implications of the bolded section are far-reaching: in effect, it means this legislation would not merely require NICS checks on private sales, it would outlaw direct private sales at gun shows. Compliance with state and federal laws means the FFL would have to enter the firearm into his bound book, make the transferee fill out an ATF Form 4473, etc.

The long and short of it is, what you have there is evidence of the NRA opposing a prohibition on private sales.

it merely requires a change in the procedure at gun shows. One proposal I've seen here is to require every individual who attends the gun show to pass a NICS upon entering the show, that would make it simpler for the private arms dealers at gun shows.

And where is the NRA proposing its own solution to this problem? Nowhere. They've got the power in washington to make it happen. If I were a gun rights advocate I would be pressing for closing the loophole; as long as it remains open there is always the chance that another monstrous tragedy occurs and at some point the

global solutions including ending the drug war and tarrifs to protect US manufacturing.

you are capable of advocating for sane rational ideas.

if only you would join me.

Outside of private sales issue, I have not seen any ideas let alone sane or rational. I am still looking for lower murder rates being caused by laws passed.

that the private seller loophole is a major problem, an easy way for criminals to get firearms.

Registration is a sane idea. Spousal notification is a sane idea (unless you think Canada is insane).

former marine lance corporal and Norteno gang member, who modified an SKS semiautomatic rifle to make it fully automatic, and murdered a police officer with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpMg393Imk4

the weapon he is firing is fully automatic. I became aware of this case when I was watching "gangland" and an officer on the show stated that this weapon had been illegally altered to make it fully automatic.

http://www.livedash.com/transcript/gangland-(basic_training)/7038/SPIKEP/Saturday_November_20_2010/515864/

>> narrator: THE MAN REFUSED, Then pulled out an illegally converted fully automatic s.k.s. assault rifle.

These conversions can be made. So let's dispense with this bullshit.