Ban hands and feet

[spookyturtle 9,465]

OK, but it has nothing to do with guns.

I am against FINES for punishment. Why? Fines require DUE PROCESS. The due process will cost the government more than the fines bring in and delay the punishment and the results.

TAXES are the answer, either tax penalties or tax incentives. Taxes require no "due process" they are levied by a legislative body and elections are all the "due process" we get. Settled law. It has been done for decades for every cause known to government including "obamacare". We know how to do it for everything else, why not to protect legal rights of workers?

What about an ammo tax?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Now you're making the argument in favor of banning firearms rather than just certain rifles. Awesome.

Thank you for that Big Dog. It is often my claim that people who "say" they want to ban "assualt rifles", (those are the "bad guns", right?) Those same people actually want to ban ALL firearms from private ownership and often enugh they tip their hand to show their cards, as you just did.

Take a look at my photos, really. (make sure your wife doesn't catch you checking out hot Ukraine chicks) You think that is an "assualt rifle" Alla is shooting? No? But it is the same caliber as an M-16. Check out the 5 shots in one hole, smaller than a dime at 100 yds photo. D'ya Think sweet little Alla could "assualt" you with that rifle? She could assault the sh*t out of you with that rifle. But it IS a pretty rifle isn't it? Nice wood and checkering, raised cheekpiece with accent line, sculpted steel grip cap and buttplate with heel clip. Ebony forend tip. Flawless polishing and bluing as deep as the ocean! And only a 2.75x scope, no lasers or flashlights anywhere, no plastic. Best of all, the Classic Winchester logo on the chamber. Harmless looking, isn't it? I think we will let her keep that rifle, right?

What kind of idiot addresses problems involving the safety of our children by proposing bans on cosmetic features of rifles?

Deal with it Big Dog. Settled law. There will be no federal bans on any firearms. Carry on.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[james&olya 1,121]

Banning or not banning the assualt rifle ppl who are going to get them circumventing the law will always get them.

There is no data that supports that banning the gun improves saftey or decreases number of homicides.

BS! This latest mass shooting involved the deranged shooter using his momma's guns. If she didn't have the rifle it could be speculated that he might have tried to buy or steal one but that speculation would have very little basis!

My point was that banning assault rifles is a stupid political motivated , move that is designed to excite Liberals that don't understand weapons or their use. It serves absolutely no purpose other than to demonize gun owners, and make it look to Liberals like, "they care".

It's liberal idiotic psycho babel at it's pinnacle of sheer ignorance. They are wanting to ban a weapon, that does not kill as many people as beatings because of the way it looks.

exactly.

Speaking of idiotic babbling!!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What about an ammo tax?

Ammunition is taxed by Pittman Robertson also, along with reloading components. So why not?

I would not be opposed to it but not sure it is needed. I did not run the numbers but given the sales of firearms I am not sure it would be needed. But it could be funded any number of ways.

I guess my point is that the NRA offered to make "meaningful contributions" to the "debate" and I think, as I always do, that I like to see people "put their money where their mouth is" Most of the opponents to the NRA's suggestion note that schools do not have the funding for police officers...OK, so negate that argument, WE (gun owners) will fund it. We believe in it, WE will pay for it.

We agree our children need protection and as a firearms owner I would be PROUD to contribute to that. I have four children I want them protected and bans on cosmetic features of guns do nothing to make me feel better, but then I actually graduated from school so I understand how retarded it is to think banning a flash hider or a pistol grip would save our children from maniacs.

I also understand that when people who do not have guns get threatened the FIRST thing they do is call people WITH guns. So why not have a gun there, in the hands of a trained person? In other words...start out with what you would end up with.

So yes, I would like to see firearms owners step forward and offer this to our community. I will throw in my %. If that means an ammo tax, OK, whatever works best. I pay it now for wildlife management so why not?

BS! This latest mass shooting involved the deranged shooter using his momma's guns. If she didn't have the rifle it could be speculated that he might have tried to buy or steal one but that speculation would have very little basis!

Speaking of idiotic babbling!!

So how do you feel about police officers, funded by taxes on firearms, in every school?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

BS! This latest mass shooting involved the deranged shooter using his momma's guns. If she didn't have the rifle it could be speculated that he might have tried to buy or steal one but that speculation would have very little basis!

Speaking of idiotic babbling!!

I am disappointed James, really.

There is a police officer in that school paid for by gunowners.

OR compare that scenario to ...

There is no police officer in the school BUT assault rifles are banned so his mother has a similar caliber lever action rifle with a 15 round magazine and two handguns with 10 round magazines each.

In WHICH scenario would LESS children be killed?

Edited December 28, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[james&olya 1,121]

Yes and no. No problem with hiring American workers and paying whatever wage is neceesary to attract and retain them, give them benefits etc...and raise the price of onions to pay for it...EXCEPT that the Mexicans can go to Alabama and pick onions and the Alabama farmers can sell onions for less than Georgia farmers.

IF we made it mandatory for EVERYONE then it will be less "of a burden". We also need to heavily penalize anyone that does not do it.

[james&olya 1,121]

So how do you feel about police officers, funded by taxes on firearms, in every school?

No problem at all!

I am disappointed James, really.

There is a police officer in that school paid for by gunowners.

OR compare that scenario to ...

There is no police officer in the school BUT assault rifles are banned so his mother has a similar caliber lever action rifle with a 15 round magazine and two handguns with 10 round magazines each.

In WHICH scenario would LESS children be killed?

You are comparing apples and oranges here. Each proposal can stand or fall on its own. I would like to see 'assault' rifles banned AND perhaps have sheriff deputies assigned to schools for children's safety, paid for by the same people that now fund the NRA, the gun enthusiasts and the manufacturers that have got us to this sad state of affairs!

Edited December 28, 2012 by james&olya

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There is no data that supports that banning the gun improves saftey or decreases number of homicides.

There isn't? Last I checked, NYC is now one of the safest, least homicide ridden large cities in the country. It also is one of the tightest in terms of gun restrictions. There are less homicides in NYC than in most other major MSAs in states that have more liberal gun laws. Houston, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta - you name them. There are far higher gun murder rates in those cities than there are in NYC. Far, far higher. Those are the facts.

If you go to even stricter gun control like you'd find in the sane pars of the world, the results are even more impressive.

Thank you for that Big Dog. It is often my claim that people who "say" they want to ban "assualt rifles", (those are the "bad guns", right?) Those same people actually want to ban ALL firearms from private ownership and often enugh they tip their hand to show their cards, as you just did.

Paranoia can be treated, Gary. Seek help before you do something stupid.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why ban assault rifles?

Because those are the weapons of choice in just about every one of the mass murders that are committed. You won't stop "law abiding gun owners" for shooting kids for exercising their protected right of playing music loudly in public. Yes, that's a protected right here in the Sunshine State. And a young man has been robbed of his right to life by some fcuking gun nut for exercising it. It'll be after my lifetime that sanity wins over this gun nuttery - it'll happen eventually but I don't think I'll live to see it. Until then, we can at least make sure that gun nuts - all these mass murderers share that common trait of being gun nuts - do not have access to devices designed specifically and for no other purpose than to maximize killing power. That's why assault rifles need to be banned. They serve no good purpose at all.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I would like to see 'assault' rifles banned AND perhaps have sheriff deputies assigned to schools for children's safety, paid for by the same people that now fund the NRA, the gun enthusiasts and the manufacturers that have got us to this sad state of affairs!

That won't work. The NRA and its supporters doesn't have the funds to do that. The proposal the NRA just put out would cost somewhere in the range of $10 billion a year. The NRA and its supporters can't fund but a tiny percentage of that. They're looking for big gubmint and the taxpayers at large to pay for all that. Yeah, they love big gubmint when it picks up their tab.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Because those are the weapons of choice in just about every one of the mass murders that are committed. You won't stop "law abiding gun owners" for shooting kids for exercising their protected right of playing music loudly in public. Yes, that's a protected right here in the Sunshine State. And a young man has been robbed of his right to life by some fcuking gun nut for exercising it. It'll be after my lifetime that sanity wins over this gun nuttery - it'll happen eventually but I don't think I'll live to see it. Until then, we can at least make sure that gun nuts - all these mass murderers share that common trait of being gun nuts - do not have access to devices designed specifically and for no other purpose than to maximize killing power. That's why assault rifles need to be banned. They serve no good purpose at all.

I think that the point that is trying to be made is that whether it was an assault style weapon or Grandpa's Winchester rifle, if you were shot, you were still dead. Other weapons don't hold as many rounds as some of the high capacity weapons, but someone with several 10 round magazines can still inflict a lot of damage, you just have to reload a few seconds quicker. You can take a hunters 12 gauge shotgun and load it up with 00 buck shot and pile up the carnage even quicker.

Someone who has gone off the deep end and decides to do a mass shooting will use whatever weapons he can get his hands on. Not many will change their mind because they don't have an AR-15 or AK-47. The old Remington, Winchester, etc will do just fine.

The problem is well beyond what type of gun is being used. What has happened to people that this type of event is so common place? We really need to find and deal with the cause.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

For all you geniuses with a big social conscience, did you know more people were killed in 2011 by hands and feet than assault rifles?

What is the primary purpose of assault rifles? To kill and to maximizing the killing potential. Can the same be said of hands and feet? Of course not.

How many mass murders have been committed with hands and feet? None. How many have been committed with assault rifles? Way too many and just about all of them.

That's why you would want to ban the latter rather than the former. Any person with a sound mind recognizes that simple truth. Gun nuts do not. They are incapable of rational thought.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem is well beyond what type of gun is being used. What has happened to people that this type of event is so common place? We really need to find and deal with the cause.

Sure but the fact remains that assault rifles are the weapon of choice in just about all the mass murders that are committed. They serve no good. Why do we have to have them in circulation?

[Karee 4,189]

Sure but the fact remains that assault rifles are the weapon of choice in just about all the mass murders that are committed. They serve no good. Why do we have to have them in circulation?

Because they're legal.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Sure but the fact remains that assault rifles are the weapon of choice in just about all the mass murders that are committed. They serve no good. Why do we have to have them in circulation?

boo hoo hoo. You wouldn't know an assault rifle if it bit you in your German #######. 543 people got whacked by guns in Chicago last year and none of you libs said jack #######. 30 little white kids in white kid suburbia got whacked by a white whack job who stole guns from his white upper middle class mother and your all over it like a fly on %*#&.

Spare us.