Likes: 
Faceplams: Huh, I just thought it was my shitty browser (IE11).Originally Posted by DigitalChaos
Active Member
Huh, I just thought it was my shitty browser (IE11).
Active Member
No, we'd just have a lot more dead blacks and minorities.
Bite me
Whoa, interesting!!!
A shooting weapon produces two sounds. One is the crack of the bullet, which can be heard on most video recordings of the shooting and is produced by the bullet traveling faster than the speed of sound. This is unaffected by suppressors.
Active Member
Georgia politician holds bump stock giveawayNBC News on MSN.com · 7 hours ago
A GOP senator running for governor in Georgia is giving away a bump stock, the modification apparently used by the Las Vegas shooter.
Well that's not tone deaf.
Administrator
fuck that guy. this screams "i need attention."Georgia politician holds bump stock giveaway
A GOP senator running for governor in Georgia is giving away a bump stock, the modification apparently used by the Las Vegas shooter.
Well that's not tone deaf.
Administrator
Yeah but it seems to happen a ton in my state and it's fucking disgusting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bite me
Continued from HERE (wrong thread)
Again, you're not understanding American culture or American civics. The laws are enforceable, but there are problems with enforcement -- mostly caused by our own freedoms provided by our Constitution as well as logistical problems that are endless and difficult to fix.
I'll give you an example:
The City of Chicago is often touted on TV and by the Cheeto as having the "strictest" gun laws in the country. But that's a total load of bullshit. However, that being said, even with those strict gun bans that were in place for over 30 years, we still had a ton of shootings. Because criminals don't follow laws. They're criminals. Background checks etc. only work if people abide by the law. If the criminal sends a straw man to Indiana where you only need a driver's license and that gun buyer then sells the gun to a criminal with six felony gun convictions, the system can't stop that. Straw men purchases are illegal, but no straw man is gonna tell a gun dealer that he's a straw man. And each state has its own gun laws, because of states rights built into not only our Tenth Amendment to our national Constitution but also its Second Amendment. Also, criminals get stolen guns, and now it's really believed by many here that the guns are coming in WITH THE DRUGS. Like, TRAIN LOADS of drugs and guns.
So, how do we "fix" that? I don't know if you've noticed, but Chicago is broke. Illinois is broke. I mean, like, so in debt, Chicago is been lowered to "junk bond" status. Mostly due to bad spending but a lot due to municipal pension debts. Which can't be changed due to our STATE Constitution. So we keep raising various taxes, etc., but more police presence means needing a lot more money. Which Chicago doesn't HAVE.
So, the Cheeto and Sessions has indicated that maybe they'll send in the Feds to help Chicago fight this problem, which our Mayor and our Police Superintendent said would be AWESOME because now gun offenders -- who often make bail within HOURS because gang members are connected to a network of wealth that has no problem paying $10,000 or $20,000 bail -- either commit more gun crimes while out on bail, or they are in jail for a short time and then are let out due to OVERCROWDING in the jail. Can't build another jail because of NO MONEY. BUT, if the Feds take over gun charges, the offenders will be sentenced to FEDERAL prison, also known as "Siberia" because these prisons are far away and so controlled that gangs can't run things while in jail or prison.
BUT ... the Cheeto and Sessions now won't help Chicago at all because it's a SANCTUARY CITY to undocumented immigrants and will not change that. Sessions claims that the gang shootings are all related to undocumented immigrants. Except the shootings are primarily black people. *shrug* Oh, wait, but Sessions says it's because the undocumented immigrants are bringing in ALL THE DRUGS. Which is a load of shit, but whatever, so we're stuck with trying to do the best we can to fight what are basically drug gangs selling drugs to people from the suburbs, and it's like the OK Corral. And it's WORSE per capita in many other cities, here. And it's not going to get fixed any time soon because every one of those cities is too busy managing debts and isn't gonna spend money in a ghetto.
See: Chicago Needs a War on Poverty to Stop the Violence.
And that's just ONE example of why this isn't an easy problem, why it's hard to enforce laws.
Oh, SUUUUUURE, we can do what NYC did years ago, with random searches and seizures, and cops beating the shit out of people -- all people, innocent people -- in order to "enforce" gun laws and to "clean up the neighborhood." But, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that this was not only a bad idea, it was totally illegal. So, that ain't happening. We have civil liberties, here. We can't "enforce the law" by taking liberties from others.
Regarding Congress enacting new laws after Reagan was shot: That is because many members of Congress, including Democrats, know that gun control is so powerful an issue that they risk not being re-elected if they vote in favor of gun control laws that are perceived as a "slippery slope" to voters. In 1994, after a President had recently been shot, and three Presidents endorsed a gun-control law, it garnered more support in Congress; but it DIDN'T have support among voters, which is why a lot of people lost in the next election.
Gun owners see crime as ANOTHER REASON TO HAVE A GUN. So "giving a shit," to them, means owning a gun. Not the opposite. Now, gun owners are pointing to the fact that two gun-owning citizens in Texas shot at the shooter, shot him twice, and pursued him in a car.
This actually happened in front of me, once, weird story: I was living in a suburb of Detroit that's pretty much surrounded by Detroit and has crime problems because criminals come in, commit crimes, then disappear over the city's border into Detroit. Anyway, I lived on the 2nd floor, was home one summer night and heard SCREAMING out front. I ran to my front balcony and saw a neighbor lady, Lotty, being held up at gunpoint by 3 teenagers. Suddenly, FRONT DOORS STARTED OPENING in other homes around where Lotty was standing, and people started coming out HOLDING RIFLES and shit.
And the culprits jumped into a car and took off. And some of these neighbors JUMPED INTO CARS AND TOOK OFF AFTER THESE ROBBERS. Craziest shit I'd ever seen. The cops showed up (really small police force, no money, "jail" was them handcuffing you to the cigarette machine) and they said Lotty shouldn't have screamed, she coulda been shot. Yeah, fuck that shit, you didn't see what happened!
Ends up the neighbors scared the shit out of these robbers, the robbers crashed the car and started running on foot, and I guess these neighbors CHASED AFTER THEM WITH RIFLES and shit.
Like, yeah, this is another Day in America.
Last edited by allegro; 11-07-2017 at 12:00 PM.
Bite me
See, that's also a myth.
You know who makes the NRA so powerful? VOTERS. Not Congress. Congress, contrary to popular beliefs, gets very little money from the NRA. Sure, the NRA contributes to PACs but that's not why so much of Congress is voting against gun laws.
They're voting against gun laws because the voters who PUT THEM THERE expect them to vote against gun laws. And if they do the opposite, they'll be unemployed. DEMOCRATS have voted against gun laws for this reason. BERNIE SANDERS has voted against gun laws.
So, the NRA is there -- and paid for -- by voters who have this idea that Congress is suddenly going to take all the guns. And these voters vote for people who vow to keep their 2nd Amendment rights.
So, you wanna blame somebody? Blame American citizens who vote for this stuff, because they are afraid of slippery slopes or whatever other reason. But, the NRA doesn't control Congress; the VOTERS control Congress when it comes to gun issues.
Edit: but also see my above post about how the root of a lot of shootings isn’t about the gun; it’s about the people who have the gun. Insanity, poverty, drugs, anger and misogyny, crime, etc.
Last edited by allegro; 11-07-2017 at 05:31 PM.
Administrator
I absolutely blame the voters. That’s why I said we are stupid. The Republican Party can fire up their base anytime with guns and abortion. It works every time except when they lost to Obama. Then they convince them Obama’s would take their precious guns.
The gun lobby, the nra and the gun manufacturers are the only ones who can help us. I’ll keep saying it because we need their help. We’re fucked until they do.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
tempus est umbra in mente
I'm sorry, but the NRA and Gun manufacturers are just as likely to help this situation as Philip Morris vying to ban cigarettes or Exxon arguing for emission taxes.
Administrator
I agree with you but I think pushing ideas for public safety would make them look good. There would be no need for government regulation if they regulated themselves and maybe even saved lives. The safety of the general public should be their top concern. Instead, the entire 2a attitude is there’s nothing we can do. Until the gun industry fixes itself, I will support any and all calls for gun control.
tempus est umbra in mente
David Cross had a really good (and dark as fuck) comedy bit about this on his last standup album... I can't find the clip, but apparently the video is now on Netflix?
Administrator
Was it from last year's tour? I saw him in february 2016 and i don't remember him talking about guns specifically but i remember him saying a bunch of funny stuff that i agreed with.
tempus est umbra in mente
Yeah... the audio standup was from right before the election... and the bit deals with something along the lines of "so, what if... just what if... whatever senator or whatever who's got a glowing review from the NRA... he's got like five smiling bullets or whatever... and it's 'Take Your Daughter to Work Day' and some crazy lunatic fuck comes in with a bullet proof vest and assault rifles, and he shoots his daughter... and she's bleeding out in his arms, saying 'Daddy, WHY, what's happening?! WHY!?' and that's what she's trying to say, but it's just coming out as a wet gargling whistle because her larynx is crushed... and as the light is fading from her eyes, he gets a call from Wayne LaPierre, and he says 'oh yes sir, I promise, it'll never happen again, she was my only child. Just send the check to the usual. Thanks.'"
"Or maybe, just maybe, he'll say, 'wow, now that this problem has personally impacted me I can understand how it's something that we should do something about!' Y'know, just maybe... Who knows?"
Bite me
The NRA **HAS** supported gun control regulations.
http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/
Bite me
It's called a "Bump Stock" and we had legislation pretty much IMMEDIATELY here in Illinois to ban them, but it failed in Illinois Congress. And you know WHY? For the same reason why most of these other pieces of gun legislation OR ANY OTHER PIECES OF LEGISLATION fail ... the bill wasn't JUST about bump stocks, the authors loaded other shit in there that was way beyond bump stocks.
But opponents, including Rep. Jerry Costello, a Democrat from Downstate Smithton, called the bill too far-reaching because it would ban any modification that accelerates the rate of fire — such as changing a spring or replacing a trigger.
“I don’t view this as a bump stock ban, I view this as a ban on 40 to 50 percent of the guns in the state,” Costello said. His district includes the World Shooting Recreational Complex in Sparta.
Costello said the legislation would turn people who modify firearms to compete in shooting competitions into lawbreakers. Most lawmakers agreed with his side of the argument, rejecting the proposal by a 48-54 vote.OKAY, SO NOTHING GETS DONE, YOU ASSHOLES.Opponents of Moylan’s bill offered an alternative backed by Rep. Barbara Wheeler, R-Crystal Lake. It would ban only bump stocks, not other devices. That bill has the support of the Illinois State Rifle Association.
“The language in the actual bill matters,” said Rep. Mark Batinick, R-Plainfield. “If you want to address the issue, let’s address the issue in a thoughtful, bipartisan manner.”
Following the vote, Moylan said he was willing to consider narrowing his bill to win more support, but he said the bill pushed by Republicans did not go far enough.
"We're not going to dilute it so it's not effective," he said.
Federal Congress HAS gone in to pass ONE FUCKING THING so we know they CAN do it, that it's possible; but the vast majority of the time, both state and federal congressional politicians get so caught up in this "but what's in it for ME?!?!!" shit that nothing gets done.
Note that the NRA did indicate support of additional regulations regarding bump stocks.
The talking heads I've seen on TV said this probably means regulations via the ATF, required licensing, etc., so that pretty much only licensed hunters can obtain them and there's a list of people who have them or whatever.The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations
See this.
“In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law.” -- NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION STATEMENT
Last edited by allegro; 11-07-2017 at 04:37 PM.
tempus est umbra in mente
Yes, and they now lean towards banning bump stocks (thank you for the correction), but it's only because THIS CRAZY SHIT has happened. They fought it before when it was on the table four years ago. They capitulate strategically.
Bite me
They don’t want to ban them, they’re calling on the ATF to investigate further regulations, should be subject to further ATF regulations. They’re blaming Obama’s ATF for approving them twice since 2010. Always both sides throwing blame back and forth. Nothing gets done.
There IS a down side to banning vs. highly regulating, much like what we see now with drugs or what we had during prohibition: a banned item immediately becomes VERY VALUABLE, especially for collectors, so people can demand high prices and will reap rewards from that demand because of the limited supply in the black market; this doesn’t happen as much when something is legal yet highly regulated.
Last edited by allegro; 11-07-2017 at 05:26 PM.
Bite me
New Yorker article from last year, “Terror Begins at Home” -
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...begins-at-home
In fact, though, there is a connection between domestic violence and mass shootings, and in acknowledging that connection there is some hope for helping to prevent both. A recent analysis of mass shootings, conducted by the research-and-advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety, found the link to domestic violence “noteworthy.” Using the F.B.I.’s definition of mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people are murdered by guns, the Everytown researchers were able to document a hundred and thirty-three such shootings between January, 2009, and July, 2015. They found that “in at least 76 of the cases (57%), the shooter killed a current or former spouse or intimate partner or other family member, and in at least 21 incidents the shooter had a prior domestic violence charge.”
The lethal intersection of firearms and intimate-partner violence is actually one of the few gun-safety matters that Congress has acted on. In 1996, it adopted the Lautenberg Amendment, which bans people who have been convicted of domestic-violence misdemeanors, or who are subject to restraining orders, from owning firearms. This was sound and compassionate legislation. Guns are the most common method, by far, for killing intimate partners. Not surprisingly, the presence of a firearm in the home makes it much more likely that a woman in an abusive relationship will end up dead. And there is evidence that restrictions of the kind the Lautenberg Amendment and some state legislatures have enacted truly help. According to researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, “laws restricting firearm access for batterers subject to restraining orders are associated with a 19% reduction in rates of intimate homicide.”
Unfortunately, the federal law and similar state laws are spottily enforced. These regulations are only effective if states put in place a screening process for potential gun buyers, to see if they have restraining orders against them—and many states have not. In those cases, there is nothing to stop domestic abusers from buying, say, semiautomatic assault rifles, other than their willingness to self-report. The same applies to turning in guns they already own. Some states have laws that allow police to seize firearms when responding to domestic-violence incidents, but most do not.
Administrator
Whatever dude. Are you trying to be condescending? There needs to be consequences for not reporting this information because people are dying not because fucking feelings are hurt. Massive fucking eyeroll.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Administrator
Nothing changed except you being a troll. We absolutely do need gun control. What part of my post led you to believe that’s changed for me? This is a multi faceted problem. Enforcing the current laws and standards is part of it. Creating new guidelines for background checks is another part. There’s a ton of things that could be done right now that would help. I also said I’d support the industry instead of regulation if they lead the way on the matter but you’ve ignored that and reduced it to “because feelings”.
What you said is dismissive and condescending. Keep pretending it’s about my feelings not about public safety and the lack of control we have over completely preventable deaths that are happening daily.
I was nobody. Nothing.
you know, i'm a leftist and a liberal.
but i'm of the mind that gun control measures are NOT going to stop gun violence.
if i'm not mistaken, the majority of gun crimes are committed with guns that were illegally obtained.
however, the various agencies involved in information relevant to background checks need to do a better job of communicating with one another.
why was the Texas church shooter able to buy an assault rifle while having a fucking ridiculous number of red flags?
He was court martialed for sneaking guns onto the air force base where he was stationed and threatening officers there, he was convicted of some pretty rough domestic violence, he had ESCAPED from a goddamn MENTAL HOSPITAL.
Shouldn't both the court martial and the domestic violence charges prevent him from buying a gun?
Of course, he could have just bought weapons illegally, but if the background check had worked right, it would have at least made things a little harder for him.
Active Member
fuck the NRA & the gun nuts in the US. confiscate & melt down everything unless they want to get real about background checks & licenses, etc.
Active Member
ok. when we come to harvest you for the soylent green. reference test for you....
Bite me
I think that's why people want the guns! LOL.
Or this:
Active Member
bigger concern at the moment repeal of net neutrality 1-888-call- FCC adjitpai@fcc.gov fill the inbox jam the lines
-Louie
Active Member
We have a lot of people who telework and this will probably directly affect them. I wish I could tell my boss that we should do something about it but my boss is - eventually - Donald Trump.
Bite me
Dudes ...
ALL THIS IS DRIFT IN THIS THREAD
*sobs*
Last edited by allegro; 11-23-2017 at 12:06 PM.
Bite me
Now you’re just being mean
Active Member
Ugh wish you would just contribute to other parts of the board instead of this fixation here.
Reply With Quote
