74 school shootings since Sandy Hook. More dead today.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You've never seen this clip of Diane Feinstein? Anyway there happens to be many people in this country that would support a total ban and confiscation of all firearms in the united states. It doesn't matter if they have made statements publically or not.

Jim

http://youtu.be/47XWXG1k8I4

I listened to the first few minutes of the clip. She did not, up to that point, push for a total ban and confiscation of ALL firearms in the U.S. Not even close. And I am not going to try to read between the lines or get into the mind of what Diane Feinstein may or may not truly believe. Or Nancy Peolosi. Or Mario Cuomo. Or Eric Holder. You can feel free to do so but not me. IMHO you will usually be more wrong than right. I tend to believe what people say and do rather than what they might do.

And I never said that there are no people in this country who would support a total ban of all firearms. There are extremists on both sides -- those who want total gun control and those that want no gun control. However, until someone can prove otherwise, I don't count Feinstein, Pelosi, Cuomo, or Holder with those that want total gun control. And no one so far on this forum. However, there are several people, possibly including you, who want no gun control at all.

[Allup-init]

Speed racer are we watching the same video? Because the first words out of her mouth were "if I could have got the 51 votes need for a total ban mr and mrs America turn them in I would have done it". Why is it that "common sense" and "rational discussion" are the anti-gun peoples battle cry yet never practiced by them?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Allup-init

Speed racer are we watching the same video? Because the first words out of her mouth were "if I could have got the 51 votes need for a total ban mr and mrs America turn them in I would have done it". Why is it that "common sense" and "rational discussion" are the anti-gun peoples battle cry yet never practiced by them?

Her statement about a total ban was only about assault weapons and high-capacity gun magazines. Not non-assault weapons. Not handguns. Not rifles. See below. I am not a Nancy Feinstein supporter at all but try to quote her correctly.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2541743.html

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced legislation Thursday that would ban more than 150 types of assault weapons along with certain high-capacity gun magazines, saying she knows she faces an uphill battle to get her measure through Congress but, with the help of the American public, it can be done.

Feinstein's bill is far more detailed than the 1994 assault weapons ban that lapsed in 2004. Her bill would stop the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specifically named military-style firearms and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. It would also ban an additional group of assault weapons that accept detachable ammunition magazines and have at least one military characteristic -- a new provision she said addresses a loophole in the 1994 law.

[Allup-init]

When you incorrectly label a gun an "assault weapon" nothing is off the table. Like the age old saying: how do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Allup-init

When you incorrectly label a gun an "assault weapon" nothing is off the table. Like the age old saying: how do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving

And that should go for Republicans and Democrats, Conservative or Liberal.

And, depending on one's definition of "assault weapon", several handguns would be considered an "assault weapon". According to the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 these characteristics apply:

For handguns:

• Threaded barrels made to attach a barrel extender, handgrip or flash suppressor
• A barrel shroud that can be used as a handhold
• Weight of at least 50 oz. when unloaded

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Allup-init

Yssup it's kind of ironic that you think gun laws will stop people from committing crimes with guns, yet here you are on a website whose sole purpose is to pick up hookers.... If making prostitution illegal didn't stop you why would gun laws stop criminals? Blaming me for school shootings just because I own a gun is the same as me blaming you for every dead hooker.

Uh, Allup-init, that's not what I said. I didn't blame gun owners for the dead school children. I do not favor a total ban on firearms, either, though the resident cuckoos would have you believe otherwise

This bunch, and I hope you're not one of them, cannot understand compromise and they squeal like stuck pigs when anybody suggests anything that might force them to think outside the bunker.

[Allup-init]

It does speed racer I'm not republican or democrat I view the two party system as a plague. And calling a handgun an assault weapon because of those criteria is retarded.
Yssup you missed the point why do you think gun laws will stop criminals when prostitution laws haven't stopped us? And I think it's you who doesn't understand compromise. What do I get in return for playing along with new gun laws?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

CNN has discredit the data behind the 74 shooting claim.......

From the Everytown study report. An important footnote that you anti gun nuts should take note of:

“Incidents were classified as school shootings when a firearm was discharged inside a school building or on school or campus grounds, as documented in publicly reported news accounts,” reads the site. “This includes assaults, homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings. Incidents in which guns were brought into schools but not fired there, or were fired off school grounds after having been possessed in schools, were not included.”

A bogus anti-gun study posted by Dipshit Assup.

FACT JACK !

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/11/sc...#ixzz34XIKoUsO

Originally Posted by Allup-init

Speed racer are we watching the same video? Because the first words out of her mouth were "if I could have got the 51 votes need for a total ban mr and mrs America turn them in I would have done it". Why is it that "common sense" and "rational discussion" are the anti-gun peoples battle cry yet never practiced by them?

I find very little rational discussion on either side of the gun "debate" in the media. I hear the LWWs scream for a total ban (and Feinstein is most definitely as far out on the extreme wacko scale as you can get). I hear the RWWs want complete freedom to own whatever they wish with essentially no meaningful controls. Neither of those sounds reasonable to me.

I would love to see the gun advocates be as vocal about the RESPONSIBLE part of gun control as they are about the RIGHT TO OWN part. But instead we have Chucky trying to say that a shooting isn't really a shooting, and IB pointing out that if the shooter stands across the street from the school and fires into the crowd that isn't a school shooting.

That is game playing BS. People shot dead on school grounds, or people shot and wounded on school property, or guns fired into the ceiling of a school dance are, by and intelligent definition, a school shooting. And even by stupid definitions, they are a serious problem.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

[QUOTE=Allup-init;1055436982And calling a handgun an assault weapon because of those criteria is retarded.
[/QUOTE]

Not my definition. I have fired an M-16. To me what makes it an assault weapon is the ability to be fully automatic. I personally would use the same criteria for a handgun. But since I have never owned or shopped for a handgun, I'll let others define "assault weapon" as they deem necessary.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Allup-init

It does speed racer I'm not republican or democrat I view the two party system as a plague. And calling a handgun an assault weapon because of those criteria is retarded.
Yssup you missed the point why do you think gun laws will stop criminals when prostitution laws haven't stopped us? And I think it's you who doesn't understand compromise. What do I get in return for playing along with new gun laws?

If some random innocent person dies because you fuck a hooker then you're doing it wrong.

It's spelled V I C T I M.

[Allup-init]

Old-t when anti-gun people try to push inflated numbers to try and take my rights away I'm going to point the inconsistencies. A school shooting and a shot fired outside the school are two different things completely. Yes there both a shooting at a school but it's not the same as a school shooting as we've all come to know, like the random indiscriminate killing like sandy hook, Virginia tech and columbine. As a gun owner myself I will support any law that only targets criminals and not the law abiding tax paying citizens. I have yet to see one of those.

[Allup-init]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

If some random innocent person dies because you fuck a hooker then you're doing it wrong.

It's spelled V I C T I M.

Keep dogging yssup. My dick hasn't killed anybody just like my ar15 with 30rd mag hasn't killed anyone. The question is still open for discussion: why do you think criminals will obey gun laws when you yourself break prostitution laws? Wether you agree with the law or not, no matter what the perceived harm you think will come from breaking the law, the law is the law. I also want to know what compromise we're talking about? What do I get in return for compromising to universal back round checks? What are you willing to give in return? Your starting to sound like one of those squeezing pigs who can't think outside the bunker... Or do you not want compromise and just want everyone to do what you say?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Allup-init

As a gun owner myself I will support any law that only targets criminals and not the law abiding tax paying citizens. I have yet to see one of those.

Many gun control laws are on the books in an attempt to prevent homicides, and they are not targeting criminals. My place of business outlaws handguns from the building. My credit union does the same. The law allows me to ban handguns from my home. These measures are taken because it is deemed that allowing handguns in those locations is more dangerous than not doing so. College dormitories and classrooms in most states ban handguns. Again, this is not aimed at criminals.

[Allup-init]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Many gun control laws are on the books in an attempt to prevent homicides, and they are not targeting criminals. My place of business outlaws handguns from the building. My credit union does the same. The law allows me to ban handguns from my home. These measures are taken because it is deemed that allowing handguns in those locations is more dangerous than not doing so. College dormitories and classrooms in most states ban handguns. Again, this is not aimed at criminals.

I base my view of a law on it's effects not its intentions. Every school shooting and bank robbery take place in gun free zones yet they still take place so your argument is null and void because your perceived safety isn't accomplished. Your business or house is private property and you can manage them as you see fit. In my home guns are encouraged and we both have the same number of firearms deaths. Zero. The law is pointless and unneeded.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I listened to the first few minutes of the clip. She did not, up to that point, push for a total ban and confiscation of ALL firearms in the U.S. Not even close. And I am not going to try to read between the lines or get into the mind of what Diane Feinstein may or may not truly believe. Or Nancy Peolosi. Or Mario Cuomo. Or Eric Holder. You can feel free to do so but not me. IMHO you will usually be more wrong than right. I tend to believe what people say and do rather than what they might do.

And I never said that there are no people in this country who would support a total ban of all firearms. There are extremists on both sides -- those who want total gun control and those that want no gun control. However, until someone can prove otherwise, I don't count Feinstein, Pelosi, Cuomo, or Holder with those that want total gun control. And no one so far on this forum. However, there are several people, possibly including you, who want no gun control at all.

Although Feinstein placed her emphasis primarily on the ban of the AR-15's, to me that is just the beginning of other weapons with similar criteria that may be the subject of future bans on firearms. Gun control is not nearly as important as asshole control, that's really the key to controlling gun violence. Confront the man, the guy who commits these crimes. He will always strive to find new ways to commit violent crime with or without gun control or gun banning. We already have laws in place which prohibit the possession, sale or access to firearms by convicted felons. America happens to be a country with a vast history of Gun Culture. America is also a country with a high level of violent crime. America also has for the most part a law abiding citizenry. Those individuals deserve to be empowered and protected and given the ultimate power and security to protect themselves. Where as those that have entered into the criminal sector are and should be restricted.

Jim