Obama and his speech in the Oval Office
-
Dont mean to be cynical but the timing was way off. Should've been sooner.
-
He said nothing new.
Just a bunch of political mumbo-jumbo
Plus a shot at assault weapons, for good measure.
And then a tolerance for Muslim's.
Damn I sound like cal.........................I'm scared, really scared
-
Lol.
-
Damn I sound like cal.........................I'm scared, really scared 149
***********************************************
The truth shall set you free....
-
I turned the feckless POS's speech off.
I'm getting some years on me but I have to say, I've never disliked an American President nearly as much as I dislike this Piece o Crap
Our musical works to date http://www.arielsatticmusic.com/ -
Not even Jimmy Carter?
-
At least Jimmy Carter seems like a genuinely nice person. Obama is a lying crook.
-
-
This guy totally nails it!!
We're not afraid! We're PISSED OFF!!
Our musical works to date http://www.arielsatticmusic.com/ -
Oh my
-
-
-
Peters did not give a shit haha.
Peters did not give a shit haha.
How many congratulatory emails do ya think this guy got from his military peers despite getting suspended for two weeks for telling the truth..
-
"Talking Productively about Guns"
https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns/
The author brings up many good points. Several of which I've made here, but he makes more thoroughly and eloquently. For example:Gun Terminology Matters
If we had the "reasonable gun control" I keep hearing about, what guns would be limited? I'm arguably not a complete idiot, but I can't figure it out. I hear "nobody wants to take away all your guns" a lot which seems demonstrably false but what guns do gun-control advocates want to take away, or restrict? Most of the time I don't know and I suspect that the advocates don't know either.
That's because there's a terminology gap. Many people advocating for gun control mangle and misuse descriptive words about guns. No doubt some of them are being deliberately ambiguous, but I think most people just haven't educated themselves on the meaning of a relatively small array of terms. That's how you get a debate framed around gibberish like "multi-automatic round weapons" and the like. You get people using "semi-automatic" and "automatic" without knowing what they mean, and you get the term "assault weapon" thrown about as if it means more than whatever we choose to make it mean, which it does not.
If you don't understand these terms already, why should you care? You should care because when you misuse them, you signal substantially broader gun restrictions than you may actually be advocating. So, for instance, if you have no idea what semi-automatic means, but you've heard it and it sounds scary, and you assume that it means some kind of machine gun, so you argue semi-automatics should be restricted, you've just conveyed that most modern handguns (save for revolvers) should be restricted, even if that's not what you meant.
It's hard to grasp the reaction of someone who understands gun terminology to someone who doesn't. So imagine we're going through one of our periodic moral panics over dogs and I'm trying to persuade you that there should be restrictions on, say, Rottweilers.
Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?"
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now.
Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: What the fuck.
Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own.
You: Can we?
Because I'm just talking out of my ass, the impression I convey is that I want to ban some arbitrary, uninformed category of dogs that I can't articulate. Are you comfortable that my rule is going to be drawn in a principled, informed, narrow way? -
Good point, legacy, and probably something I'm guilty of myself. I'll have a go at describing, without trying to use technical terms, what people are thinking.
- What people who advocate 'common sense' gun restrictions want to avoid is anything that can fire a high frequency of bullets/rounds/whatever in a shot period of time. Like a 'machine gun' - I don't know the technical term.
- Also, the ability to fire off a lot of bullets over a longer period of time, so something that you can fire quite quickly, has a lot of bullets.
- Probably also something that would be worth restricting is spare magazines, clips or whatever you're calling it that you can drop out of the weapon and replace pretty quickly.
- The main point is, if you're worried about self defence, fine, get a gun that allows you to defend yourself in a hurry. I'm not an expert but I believe a pistol can hold something in the order of 6 or 7 bullets? Maybe 8 or 9. That's plenty to deter someone from whatever's going on, and also plenty to put down some crazy with a gun, and also plenty to fight off a gang (if they themselves don't have guns for some reason).
- There's no need, in self defence terms, to have what I know as a 'long arm' - a rifle, shotgun etc, something that's not exactly draw and fire quickly like a pistol. There's no need to put about 30 rounds in 5 seconds.
- There's no need to open carry your hunting rifle when dropping the kids off at school, or picking up some groceries.
That's all based on the assumption that having guns readily available for self defence makes sense, of course.
To be frank, the bigger problem is with stupid people, which won't be fixed by legislating on guns, that will just make it harder for them to exercise their stupidity on others. You have people who are so quick to anger because it's the only way they know how to deal with issues. Things escalate over trivial things and people get shot. For example:
I haven't been through all of them, but the few I have check out as reflective of the truth.
-
Chris, the problem is that there have been situations (ex: LA riots, Ferguson, Post-Katrina, etc.) where having a long gun with high capacity magazines is the most logical means of defending yourself and your property.
As for the 6-7 rounds thing, handgun rounds are a compromise. You are giving up capability for concealabiity. If multiple people are confronting you, 6-7 rounds will not be enough.
In the end though, the only people who would abide by these feel good gun laws are the types of people who don't commit murders, rob people, etc. Criminals could give less of a shot about the capacity in a magazine if they are killing strangers.
-
Those situations - Post-Katrina, riots etc. - is where the police (or even military) needs to step in and control things. In the richest country in the world, it shouldn't be up to individuals to protect themselves from looters after a natural disaster. Your country needs to sort its shit out in that regard.
If multiple people are coming at you, any gun is unlikely to be enough.
And yes, criminals are criminals and will not care about the law. But if you've got a lot fewer guns capable of doing lots of damage that are easily obtainable through legal means, what chance do you have of stopping them getting those guns?
-
Good point, legacy, and probably something I'm guilty of myself. I'll have a go at describing, without trying to use technical terms, what people are thinking.
- What people who advocate 'common sense' gun restrictions want to avoid is anything that can fire a high frequency of bullets/rounds/whatever in a shot period of time. Like a 'machine gun' - I don't know the technical term.
- Also, the ability to fire off a lot of bullets over a longer period of time, so something that you can fire quite quickly, has a lot of bullets.
- Probably also something that would be worth restricting is spare magazines, clips or whatever you're calling it that you can drop out of the weapon and replace pretty quickly.
- The main point is, if you're worried about self defence, fine, get a gun that allows you to defend yourself in a hurry. I'm not an expert but I believe a pistol can hold something in the order of 6 or 7 bullets? Maybe 8 or 9. That's plenty to deter someone from whatever's going on, and also plenty to put down some crazy with a gun, and also plenty to fight off a gang (if they themselves don't have guns for some reason).
- There's no need, in self defence terms, to have what I know as a 'long arm' - a rifle, shotgun etc, something that's not exactly draw and fire quickly like a pistol. There's no need to put about 30 rounds in 5 seconds.
- There's no need to open carry your hunting rifle when dropping the kids off at school, or picking up some groceries.
That's all based on the assumption that having guns readily available for self defence makes sense, of course.
To be frank, the bigger problem is with stupid people, which won't be fixed by legislating on guns, that will just make it harder for them to exercise their stupidity on others. You have people who are so quick to anger because it's the only way they know how to deal with issues. Things escalate over trivial things and people get shot. For example:
I haven't been through all of them, but the few I have check out as reflective of the truth.
Good point, legacy, and probably something I'm guilty of myself. I'll have a go at describing, without trying to use technical terms, what people are thinking.
- What people who advocate 'common sense' gun restrictions want to avoid is anything that can fire a high frequency of bullets/rounds/whatever in a shot period of time. Like a 'machine gun' - I don't know the technical term.
Automatic weapons are already prohibitively expensive to obtain. Semi automatic weapons are legal. Semi automatic weapons cycle automatically and fire a projectile whenever the trigger is pressed. Wheel guns, such as revolvers, do the same limited only by the minute amount of time it takes for the wheel to revolve. So basically no gun is safe. Interestingly while we cannot obtain automatic weapons we ship them to the middle east like crazy
- Also, the ability to fire off a lot of bullets over a longer period of time, so something that you can fire quite quickly, has a lot of bullets.
semi automatic weapons would be included in this. Handguns and rifles especially.
- Probably also something that would be worth restricting is spare magazines, clips or whatever you're calling it that you can drop out of the weapon and replace pretty quickly.
what's to stop you from purchasing multiple identical firearms in order to have multiple magazines?
- The main point is, if you're worried about self defence, fine, get a gun that allows you to defend yourself in a hurry. I'm not an expert but I believe a pistol can hold something in the order of 6 or 7 bullets? Maybe 8 or 9. That's plenty to deter someone from whatever's going on, and also plenty to put down some crazy with a gun, and also plenty to fight off a gang (if they themselves don't have guns for some reason).
you're clearly not an expert because double stack magazines hold around 15. But most single stack magazines hold around 8-10
- There's no need, in self defence terms, to have what I know as a 'long arm' - a rifle, shotgun etc, something that's not exactly draw and fire quickly like a pistol. There's no need to put about 30 rounds in 5 seconds.
Horseshit. If I'm defending my house I would go to my carbine rifle over a handgun immediately. There's an intimidation factor there same with a shotgun. If you're burgling a house and you hear that sound of a shotgun being racked you're going to need new underpants. And if you're not fleeing immediately at that point you deserve what you're about to get
- There's no need to open carry your hunting rifle when dropping the kids off at school, or picking up some groceries.
Yeah I pretty much agree with this. I'm not a huge fan of open carry in general
That's all based on the assumption that having guns readily available for self defence makes sense, of course.
To be frank, the bigger problem is with stupid people, which won't be fixed by legislating on guns, that will just make it harder for them to exercise their stupidity on others. You have people who are so quick to anger because it's the only way they know how to deal with issues. Things escalate over trivial things and people get shot. For example:
I haven't been through all of them, but the few I have check out as reflective of the truth.
-
Horseshit. If I'm defending my house I would go to my carbine rifle over a handgun immediately. There's an intimidation factor there same with a shotgun. If you're burgling a house and you hear that sound of a shotgun being racked you're going to need new underpants. And if you're not fleeing immediately at that point you deserve what you're about to get
I was talking more about when on the street. You break in to someone's house, you get shot, you can't complain much. A man's home is his castle and all that. Walking down the street in a dodgy neighbourhood, less call for that.
what's to stop you from purchasing multiple identical firearms in order to have multiple magazines?
You would have a licence for a single firearm - if you have a concealed carry licence, are you allowed to carry as many as you want around? :S
you're clearly not an expert because double stack magazines hold around 15. But most single stack magazines hold around 8-10
So when I said around 8 or 9 I was in the right ball park. That point was reflective of those 'high capacity magazines' people are so fond of. If "double stack" takes you out of the zone of 'someone's coming at me I need to put them down' then that's potentially something that needs addressing.
Automatic weapons are already prohibitively expensive to obtain. Semi automatic weapons are legal. Semi automatic weapons cycle automatically and fire a projectile whenever the trigger is pressed. Wheel guns, such as revolvers, do the same limited only by the minute amount of time it takes for the wheel to revolve. So basically no gun is safe. Interestingly while we cannot obtain automatic weapons we ship them to the middle east like crazy
But if you're stuck with a single weapon, only holding 8-10 rounds, you're done shooting pretty quickly, no? As opposed to being able to keep shooting because you have 15 rounds per magazine and multiple magazines.
I agree on shipping them to the middle east though. Interestingly...link...US arms companies are struggling to keep up with the demand that they've created.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login