that the Sen. Feinstein's AWB/mag. limit didn't poison the well is beyond me.
Even Sen. Reid believed it would, that's why he separated it from the main bill, but by then, the damage was already done.

Sen. Feinstein knew from the start that her AWB bill was a huge distraction, but she just couldn't resist and she was hugely embarrassed by the vote.
AWB-40 yeas/60 nays

Mag. limit-46 yeas/54 nays
Neither even got a majority of yea votes.

Just media exposure is what she got; most of it bad.

It is not only legislators but also the legislation under consideration that needs credibility.

should hold true for ALL legislation regardless of the topic under consideration. no?

You have a knack for seeing basics.

Captain Obvious

...General Confusion

...seeing the basics, you should see BASIC

Not a fucking thing. Well, actually, it was worse than nothing. It scared a lot of brain dead yokels into running out and buying up every auto loading rifle in existence, right down to rimfire popguns like 1022's.

Millions of morons who have no business owning these types of firearms now have one clutched in their pudgy sweaty little hands thanks to DiFi and her asinine proposal. And to the fearmongering employed by the NRA to scare the shit off the dumbass demographic in this country.

Definitely a clusterfuck of the classic variety with plenty of blame to go around.

...I saw the movie.

Other pro-gun organizations are reporting a similar surge in membership.

Ironic, ain't it?

We're regularly accused of being NRA shills, or outright paid operatives. But for the last week or so, GD and LBN has had one report after another from all the usual suspects from among the Gun Control "Fans" about every NRA speaker, every press release, how crappy Wayne LaPierre's tie was and who had what for lunch.

Probably saved some folks the cost of a ticket to Houston.

...so I won't be attending... ever...

"Talking Points"
My following of the NRA meeting has been the 15 seconds it gets on the national news. I don't even bother to read the threads here. They are more predicable than a low budget movie.

... are coming from the same people that accuse all of us of being NRA stooges.

But they were the ones following every breathless moment of the annual meeting.

liberal or progressive in nature.

How is it that these self-appointed spokesmen for the left don't seem to be all that interested in liberal or progressive issues? How is it that they don't seem to be interested in economic justice? Or civil rights? Or humanity in general?

Maybe there are exceptions, but if so, I haven't seen them.

or even Aurora Theater mass assault where assault weapons were/are used, then limiting access to those weapons in the future certainly makes sense and is credible.

If they are trying to 'simply' limit murders due to handguns, then yes, a handgun-based bill would be more approriate.

Since both may take advantage of hi-cap mags, limiting those makes sense all around.


No reason why someone has to limit what they go after, depending on their goal(s), and of course reality of gettign something passed.

...most of what I hear about gun control laws is that guns kill ~ 30,000 people in the US every year. Then the message about how an AWB or just a ban on ARs would be such a great thing. If some politician wants to float a bill that outlaws future sales of ARs, I'd like to actually hear them admit "Yes, there are 30,000 firearm related deaths in the US annually and my well considered and carefully articulated ban can't possibly affect 99% of those."

Just for the sake of credibility.

and even that would not be a great hindrance to someone willing to practice magazine changes.

The rest of the ban was pure cosmetics, not a functional ban.

...with all of your points.

discntnt: Credibility Poll

Haha, can't stop laughing - your 'poll' is junk science.
A proper poll results from random selection of a normal distribution of people, which disqualifies your 'credibility poll' right there, since it's done in a forum about RKBA/guncontrol which attracts the progun element like bees to honey (or rats to cheese).

It is not only legislators but also the legislation under consideration that needs credibility.

Can't stop laughing takeII! from you? answering the call with your 'credibility poll'?

discntnt's concern, aka stack the deck with bias: Of the many aspects of gun control and related laws, pressure for another assault weapons ban undermines the credibility of the pro control side since rifles are used least often to murder among types firearms. Handguns are used most often.

That's the gunnut spin on it, yes. But proliferation of assault rifles, such as ar15, bullets from which can penetrate bullet vests & steel helmets & walls & doors & can be effectively lesser automatic fire ~90 rds per minute, with little recoil so as to make them more accurate, are not needed in civilian communities. You are introducing more & more battlefield guns into places which are not battlefields.
Handguns kill of course far more frequently, they are cheaper to buy, but have less long range capability & accuracy & are normally limited to a few deaths per incident. Handguns cannot be banned or even suppressed, while assault weapons can be nipped in the bud.

discntnt: Does another AWB undermine pro control credibility?

Even your poll question is subjectively dumb. There is no federal awb, so we presume you speak of another 'state' awb. And just prior to asking this question you stacked the deck with a biased introduction, duh, this is junk science rasmussen style.
What did you REALLY prove with your poll? What we already knew to begin with, which posters were pro gun, & which were not, wheeeee, have a pyrrhic victory party & get giddy with elation;
Your 80% pro gun result also proves NOTHING except your poll is junk science, since it is opposite to what properly run reputable polls have shown about support for awb & current guncontrol efforts.
An internet poll is unscientific & only rarely backs into accuracy, serendipitously, and this one sure didn't.

"Haha, can't stop laughing - your 'poll' is junk science.
A proper poll results from random selection of a normal distribution of people, which disqualifies your 'credibility poll' right there, since it's done in a forum about RKBA/guncontrol which attracts the progun element like bees to honey (or rats to cheese). "

Where was it claimed to be anything but an unscientific internal poll? Or are you just upset with how little support your side could muster?

"That's the gunnut spin on it, yes. But proliferation of assault rifles, such as ar15, bullets from which can penetrate bullet vests & steel helmets & walls & doors & can be effectively lesser automatic fire ~90 rds per minute, with little recoil so as to make them more accurate, are not needed in civilian communities. You are introducing more & more battlefield guns into places which are not battlefields."

Right so you understand why we say you lose all credibility when you try and ban angled grips and heat shields. And why we don't trust you to stop with whatever you claim is sensible control this week.

"Handguns kill of course far more frequently, they are cheaper to buy, but have less long range capability & accuracy & are normally limited to a few deaths per incident. Handguns cannot be banned or even suppressed, while assault weapons can be nipped in the bud."

Did you even read the op? You prove his point with every sentence.

"Even your poll question is subjectively dumb. There is no federal awb, so we presume you speak of another 'state' awb."

Is 1994 just too far back for you to remember or are you being intentionally obtuse?

"What did you REALLY prove with your poll? What we already knew to begin with, which posters were pro gun, & which were not, wheeeee, have a pyrrhic victory party & get giddy with elation;
Your 80% pro gun result also proves NOTHING except your poll is junk science, since it is opposite to what properly run reputable polls have shown about support for awb & current guncontrol efforts.
An internet poll is unscientific & only rarely backs into accuracy, serendipitously, and this one sure didn't."

Addressed above, you might have a point if this poll was going to be used anywhere besides this thread but since it isn't you are really just blabbing on about nothing again.

clffrd: Where was it claimed to be anything but an unscientific internal poll?

Thanks for your support, that it's an unscientific internet poll, aka junk science.

clffrd: Right so you understand why we say you lose all credibility when you try and ban angled grips and heat shields. And why we don't trust you to stop with whatever you claim is sensible control this week.

Right so you understand why we think gunnuts as rightwing loonies inept at thinking beyond their personal gun ownership & trumped up rights thereof.

Is 1994 just too far back for you to remember or are you being intentionally obtuse?

Obtuse pot kettle black; reread what she wrote in OP:
1 .. also the legislation under consideration that needs credibility.
2 Of the many aspects of gun control and related laws, pressure for another assault weapons ban undermines the credibility of the pro control side...
3 Does another AWB undermine pro control credibility?

The federal assault rifle ban was defeated 40-60 in the senate last month, the legislation is not really under consideration. The only recent assault weapons bans (under consideration) which passed were in new york & denver colorado & apparently are being appealed by gun lobbynuts, and then 'credibility poll' is asking whether 'another assault weapons ban' is really necessary, duh, why should I default into thinking she's referring to the feds rather than the state appeals?
.. answer that mr specious.

clffrd: ..you might have a point if this poll was going to be used anywhere besides this thread but since it isn't you are really just blabbing on about nothing again.

I'm blabbing on about nothing? when you yourself in the very post agreed with my premise?:

clffrd agreeing with my premise: Where was it claimed to be anything but an unscientific internal poll?

My point was to expose this inaptly named fraudulent poll, so others might not fall for age old nra tactics to rig polls - THAT was in good part, the point.

The fact that you and I agree on this point should show you just how obvious and unnecessary it is to point out that this poll is unscientific and internal only.

"Right so you understand why we think gunnuts as rightwing loonies inept at thinking beyond their personal gun ownership & trumped up rights thereof."

Let's try to keep the name calling to a minimum yes I started it, I apologize

"The federal assault rifle ban was defeated 40-60 in the senate last month, the legislation is not really under consideration. The only recent assault weapons bans (under consideration) which passed were in new york & denver colorado & apparently are being appealed by gun lobbynuts, and then 'credibility poll' is asking whether 'another assault weapons ban' is really necessary, duh, why should I default into thinking she's referring to the feds rather than the state appeals?"

I guess I don't understand why you consider laws that passed prior to this latest attempt more relevant than the latest attempt? Or why when no state is mentioned you would automatically assume that the question refers to a particular state and not the more inclusive federal movement?

"I'm blabbing on about nothing? when you yourself in the very post agreed with my premise?"

Yes, once again no one has argued that this is anything but an unscientific internal poll yet you felt the need to type up a paragraph or two tearing it down. I don't think anyone is dumb enough to try and use this to show the feelings of the public as a whole

jimmy the one could start an ATA thread about dropping the poll option from DU posts.

But just how will he show the administrators that more people agree with him than disagree? There has to be some way of measuring the opinions of a group, hmmm but how?

Remember, we have a different set of rules here.

But I'm guessing Skinner might doze off before he got to the point of the post anyway.

Funny, I have noticed a high number of "privately answered" ATA posts from the people that run and rejoice in the echo chamber.

Since Skinner said some posts, that he feels are sensitive or where he feels it's appropriate, will be answered privately.

I wonder if it's another push to try and close the Gungeon, since the echo chamber doesn't seem to be drawing the 90% of DU members they expected? Of course they've banned quite a few people. Maybe that's why response isn't overwhelming?

...such a cheeky fellow regarding our new neighbors.

That reminds me, I've got to find a few more brightly colored ornaments for our lawn.

But remember to have pity on those who don't know any better.

But if they ever do decide to close the Gungeon, there are hundreds of other RKBA web sites around for us to hang out in.

But, unless one just opened up, there isn't single gun control site that allows participation anywhere out there.

Funny, with 90% of the entire population agreeing with them, and with them being so much smarter than we are, you'd think somebody could keep a gun control web site up for more than a weekend?

That would bag the regular excuse for keeping RKBA posts out of GD. I don't see it happening.

Gnomes kind of creep me out but I like windmills. Just wait til Christmas! I'm working on this string of red/green chaser lights using 100W bulbs. The string of 200 is on 2/0 copper cable which will require a permanent install. (BTW we'll need to turn off the frige and TV while they're on.)

I've been meaning to stop over and introduce myself and say welcome but you know me, I'm just a bit standoffish.
I do have about 17 months of Shotgun News to offer them in case they're short of reading material in the john. I was really hoping they'd be interested in sharing in a bulk buy of either a few cases of Redman or maybe 30,000 rounds of 30-06...
You think?

I'm tired of paying $7 per pack. I'd be in for 5-6 boxes. Either that or I'll have to find a tobacco shop on an indian reservation.

...I was hoping to make the offer to our new neighbors at the GCRA Group the chance to buy in. Just trying to be neighborly, you see.


What price do you get on the res???

When I could order it online it was around $1.90 per pack. Last time I drove through Nevada I found it for $2.99 just outside Reno.

Take Care,

he seems to be interested in buying up ammo

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022794158

His user name just sounds darn right friendly.

Glad you got a chuckle but it's my turn, now. "Junk science is any scientific data, research, or analysis considered to be spurious or fraudulent." Now considering my OP here (an internet opinion poll) can't possibly be inferred to be "scientific data, research, or analysis".

Very funny!



Just another short poll here: would that make you a bee/rat/progun element? (Unscientific? You bet!)

1. "proliferation of assault rifles, such as ar15"
   
2. "bullets from which can penetrate bullet vests & steel helmets & walls & doors"
   
3. "can be effectively lesser automatic fire ~90 rds per minute"
   
4. "with little recoil so as to make them more accurate"
   
5. "You are introducing more & more battlefield guns into places which are not battlefields."
   
6. "Handguns kill of course far more frequently, they are cheaper to buy,"
   
7. "but have less long range capability & accuracy"
   
8. "are normally limited to a few deaths per incident."
   

Just some observations/questions:

1. AR-15s are functionally the same as numerous other rifles
   
2. many bullet designs have similar or superior penetration characteristics
   
3. many rifles can be fired at this rate
   
4. would you have something scientific that determines accuracy by recoil amount
   
5. an AR is not a "battlefield gun" nor is it an "assault rifle"
   
6. very true, as I said
   
7. well of course but that doesn't change their effectiveness
   
8. deaths that occur in ones or twos are acceptable???
   

"There is no federal awb, so we presume you speak of another 'state' awb."
- Since the topic here is legislation being considered, I infer that you missed that.

"What did you REALLY prove with your poll?"
- Nothing, I just collected opinions.

"Your 80% pro gun result also proves NOTHING except your poll is junk science, since it is opposite to what properly run reputable polls have shown about support for awb & current guncontrol efforts."
- You mean those polls which I linked here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172121632
The same polls that conclude half to two thirds of those surveyed believe registration data will be used to confiscate guns? Are those the polls you're thinking of?

dscntnt: The same polls that conclude half to two thirds of those surveyed believe registration data will be used to confiscate guns? Are those the polls you're thinking of?

The quinni poll questions are ambiguous, they could be interpreted in a couple opposing ways; to gunnuts they will say 'yes registration will enable govt to confiscate my legally owned guns for doing nothing wrong'.
Guncontrol advocates will answer 'yes registration will enable govt to confiscate illegally owned firearms from gunowners disallowed to have them' OR 'yes registration will allow govt to confiscate legally owned firearms from gunowners when they have become outlawed due new legislation or the gunowners become ineligible to own firearms'.

My premises above are borne out by the quinni question in the very poll your figures come from, where 91% of american support bg checks; why pray tell, would they support to such strength if they thought subsequent confiscation was wrong illicit or harmful?

quinni: Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?"
3/26, 2013: Support 91% ... Oppose 8% ... Unsure 1%

polling report, quinni: "If the federal govt does create a national list of people who own guns, do you think the govt would use that information to take guns away from people who own them?" Yes/No/Unsure - 66/32/2%
- "Do you believe that if there are background checks for all gun purchases the govt will or will not use that information in the future to confiscate legally-owned guns?" Will/Will not/Unsure - 48/38/14

WRT the 48% portion who think background checks will be used to confiscate legally owned firearms, at least 83% of them (or 40% of all polled) also believe that the very bg checks should become law.
So your implication that gun confiscation due bg checks is deemed sinister by those polled, is demonstrably wrong.

I feel somewhat disrespected here. Your first reply addressed numerous thoughts included in my OP giving your own on these topics and adding others. My efforts at addressing the issues you brought up have been met with... nothing. The three dozen or so lines I wrote considering those points brought you to... RESPOND TO THE LAST THREE.


But no matter, I'll address this:
"So your implication that gun confiscation due bg checks is deemed sinister by those polled, is demonstrably wrong."

- Don't blame me if you infer that confiscation is sinister. I have no idea what those polled were thinking. I don't care what anyone believes about registration and confiscation. I believe that registration could lead to confiscation. Private property legally owned by persons charged but not convicted of some offenses has been confiscated by the government.


Please feel free to add to the litany of rudeness repeated so often by some but not all of those here on the pro control side.