I do not agree with this opinion piece. Assault weapons are very rarely used in crime. The Uzi is a submachine gun and already very heavily restricted and regulated. The Sandy Hook weapon was not an "assault Weapon".

so what are your thoughts on the Google cut and paste opinion piece, would you care to discuss it?

Fully automatic is one of the features required of an assault weapon under the generally accepted definition.

Not to be confused with the made-up propagandized DiFi daffynition for them, with a barrel shroud and pistol grip and thing that goes up.

(e.g. more than 2 people being killed in one attack)

While I find the idea of doing so repugnant, I have little doubt I could take a shotgun manufactured prior to 1900 and kill multiple people before the police arrived and killed me. Probably 95%+ of shooters have a similar ability.

And you wonder why none of us here take you seriously.

I'll even supply some proof, at the video the shooter fired 24 aimed shots in a bit over 22 seconds, all with guns that are replicas of ones designed in 1873.

do you not see that?

with the majority of those being suicides.
I agree that having 9 year olds firing Uzi's, or for that matter, any auto firearm, is absurd.

is 6x that of the next industrialized nation. But because the rate is lower than it once was I guess being the most lethal industrialized and educated nation is OK.

And seeing as the highest homicide rates seem to be concentrated in anti-gun districts it seems the anti-gun crowd is dragging down the more civilized parts of the US.

Last edited Wed Sep 3, 2014, 08:11 PM - Edit history (1)

NU, you are spot on, although it isn't rates, but raw numbers that that they lead in by leaps and bounds.

This map (which shows actual gun violence in raw numbers), kindly provided by one of our friends on the other side of the issue, shows it:



Its funny how they (usually) try to paint low population states like Wyoming and Montana as dangerous places, while at the same time painting places like Illinois and CA as less violent, using maps based on "rate":

Your post was about removing weapons used in your definition of a mass shooting from society.

When confronted with evidence that your premise was absurd, you switch to the level of gun violence, which even you know is dropping according to DOJ statistics and the extraordinarily rare tragedy of a person dying from legally owned, full auto weapon at a range they were available for rent. After a search that was only the second time I could find it has occurred.

So you are willing to lose even more seats in the House and possibly lose control in the Senate to push legislation to prevent something that has occurred only twice* in the past 6 years.


*If you have accurate numbers from a credible source, provide them.

if its so rare, why not put some laws in place. it doesn't affect very many people.

more laws that are not enforced is the answer

it should be meaningless to them.

What new laws are you suggesting, remember it is about pro control not anti gun?

where did I say you should ignore the law?

Let's pass a bunch of laws we have no intention or ability to enforce. That will surely inspire confidence in the ability of government to carry out it's responsibilities. Brilliant!

their lawyer wendy Abrahamson was on politically incorrect taking offence to this statement. she said that people should be saying that the brothers only fired their guns. they did not kill their parents. the parents happened to get in the way of the bullets.

the audience booed. she's never had the same public exposure since that ridiculous comment.

the gun lover arguments are similar. parse words and ask for specifics and reject the argument because the gun control proponent didn't get the descriptions right.

we should ask for the same from traffic cops. precisely describe the car, paint, engine, type of gasoline or no ticket.

That a lawyer who tried to put the blame on the gun rather than the defendants, has more in common with the pro gun side than the antigun side?
You do know that the progun mantra is blame the person who pulled the trigger not the tool. While the antigun side always wants to blame the inanimate object.

the weapon makes a difference in the damage a person does.

the lawyer actually sounded like no one should be at fault as the killers pulled the trigger and the bullet independently killed the parents.

You do know you are posting in a thread that calls for a complete ban of a type of gun because of an accident? Please explain how that is not antigun.

How could you possibly claim that antigun is a lie in the same thread where after one accident the OP wants to ban a certain type of firearm?

I was laughing at how oblivious you were to your own surroundings.

it is anti that type of gun

And you were full of shit in post 24. Go get some substance this is getting pretty dull.

Last edited Tue Sep 2, 2014, 06:34 PM - Edit history (1)

That "one type of gun" kills less people annually than blunt trauma, and happens to be the most popular type of firearm in America.


That's how.

On edit:

For someone who claims hes not "anti-gun" and is "pro-control", you sure have a lot of anti-gun in mind for the rest of us:

You support Comcast banning gun and ammo adds:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014432564#post10

You want to ban bullets:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=43038

You want to ban "plastic" guns:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172102118#post1

And you want to ban so-called "assault weapons".

Banning a specific type of gun is "anti-gun".

The type that can be full-auto

or semi-auto

or single-shot

or magazine fed

or cylinder fed

or large caliber

or small caliber

or long rifle

or handgun

or with an optical scope

or with iron sights

or with a fixed stock

or a folding stock

or no stock

The type that can be full-auto

or semi-auto

or large caliber

And you wonder why nobody buys it when you try to pin the "pro-control" label on yourself.

You, Sir, are most definitely anti-gun.

do you have thoughts or tears on that tragedy?

What tragedy has anything to do with a complete ban on legal gun sales within the city?
I am not seeing any sort of control just more antigun nonsence.

Or do you just make this shit up as you go?

"do you have thoughts or tears on that tragedy?"

Sure I do, but I choose not to share them with you in this forum - this isn't the place for it imo.

Now how about you answer the question:

Do you agree or disagree with the Federal Judge’s Decision Overturning Chicago’s Citywide Ban on Gun Dealerships?

Last edited Tue Sep 2, 2014, 06:35 PM - Edit history (1)

I guess you aren't simply "pro-control" after all.

Not that I ever believed that bit of falsehood anyway.

For someone who claims hes not "anti-gun" and is "pro-control", you sure have a lot of anti-gun in mind for the rest of us:

You support Comcast banning gun and ammo adds:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014432564#post10

You want to ban bullets:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=43038

You want to ban "plastic" guns:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172102118#post1

And you want to ban so-called "assault weapons".

A stupid question.

Do you agree or disagree with the Federal Judge’s Decision Overturning Chicago’s Citywide Ban on Gun Dealerships?

And people wonder why we question their motives when they cant/wont talk strait about about the issue, dance around direct questions like they're hot coals, all the while couching themselves and their talking points in warm fuzzy subjective terminology, like "reasonable" or "common sense" or "pro-control".

That's not all, but its certainly enough.

in favor of guns make no sense except 'I like them, don't take them away'.

your motives are clear but not good for a functioning safe society.

what monsters they are! they have kept guns away from people!

sarcasm off

weapons the people who are criminals, only the potential victims. Think about it, how is that heroin and pot ban going?

It will make lawbreakers more powerful, more rich, and bring down the safety and quality of life for the rest of us.

and the reason we cannot agree.

nice chatting. take care.

alcohol we could cure drunk driving, numerous pathologies, domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault numerous accidents that take a toll on millions of lives every day.

alcohol-related issues? Surely you have an actual argument to make besides, "Just because!"

It's not a straw man. That's something entirely different. You may find the analogy flawed, but it's not a straw man.

Any comment on this article?

looks like another one was locked in GD for an SOP violation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5468602

I am glad they seem to be enforcing the new guidance that gun related posts should be in the state groups are the two gun related groups.

It's getting harder and harder for SecMo to violate GD's SOP now that skinner has firmed up what's allowed.
Guess he'll have to resort to posting stories about firearms in one of two groups, and we all know what his favorite group is, being as the other group, the one he's a host of, gets very little traffic.

Gets his hand slapped and its a post every hour or so. But I'm sure he's changing minds and hearts.

He convinced me to buy a new Ubert SAA birds head in 45 LC.

I myself prefer the Ruger Vaquero .45 Long Colt SAA for horseback in the back country.

I carry it in an old style western holster and gun belt, with spare ammo in the belt, just like in the old west style.



This is a pic of a right handed holster, I have a left handed holster, being as I'm left handed.

It's a well balanced revolver accurate to within about 25'.

a Blackhawk .357 and a Colt Huntsman. I traded the Colt for a Single Six and glad I did. It would be nice if someone made more Remington style SAs. The Bearcat is great backpacking gun.

Just something about the balance, heft and feel of a SAA design I think. Maybe the way it points so naturally?

Even with the Ruger Mk III to shoot, they still opt for the Bearcat for plinking, metal hangers and fun targets.

Oh, and Happy 200th Birthday Sam Colt. (even though he passed on before the SAA was introduced)

that he is allowed to continue the privilege of hosting after repeatedly being told when he has posts that break the SOP's and still keeps doing that ignoring the guidance from the forum hosts. I just find it interesting, that's all.

Post about gun stuff anytime. But they have their reasons for a partial ban on gun posts. They either see pro-2A advocates as a very viable force, and want to limit their influence on progressive politics, or there is a general consensus among DUers that they are tired of the issue "taking over" GD. Maybe it's both.

that the rules of GD need to be redefined.

and got the lock overturned, Nice to be a host.

Rules tug-of-war anyone?

What ever shall we do now?

Do you have the 2/3rds majority in Congress and the 3/4ths majority in the state legislatures to get the 2nd Amendment repealed?

If you think the rank and file police are going to enforce the law you're delusional
Or do you really want to live in a country where the military is going to door to door searching homes without warrants?

Are you going to volunteer to go door to door yourself, or are you just another keyboard commando?

...teaches at Middlebury College in Vermont. He has just published "Jesus: The Human Face of God," a biography of Jesus.}

It's a fictitious idea created by politicians that changes the cosmetic appearance of firearms. All these same weapons are/were/will be still available under past/present/proposed versions of "assault weapon" bans.

A good slogan would be "Assault Weapons: Costing Democrats elections since 1993!"

If you can't tell the difference between semi-auto and full-auto, you shouldn't post here.