Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc.

[DigitalChaos]

I don't really care what you make of his stunt, but you think it's more likely that he actually bought an AR-15 on a whim "one day after he testified against them in Colorado" instead of doing it to try to make a point that would work in concert with his anti-gun stance?

Yes, I do. Along with any other who isn't so wrapped up in your own views to make a rational observation. Even fucking SNOPES covered this http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/markkelly.asp
"The text of Kelly's post suggested he had impulsively bought the AR-15..."


His interview with Wolf Blitzer also reeks of bullshit. Kelly is going to KEEP the .45 handgun (the one he went in there to buy). The AR-15 buy was impulsive. Some blog was about to report on the story and THEN Kelly makes his Facebook post. Kelly says he was always planning to make that post... yet it's incredibly short and void of anything valuable.

I'm not one for conspiracy shit, but his story is really unbelievable.

You honestly think that he's setting himself up as a public figure against semi-automatic weapons, and then the next day he secretly wants to purchase a cache of semi-automatic weapons?

Considering he went on CNN and said that he is keeping his semi-automatic .45 handgun and adding it to the guns he and his wife own... you tell me!

[Jinsai]

"The text of Kelly's post suggested he had impulsively bought the AR-15..."

You have a tendency to cut off your quotes before a pertinent point essential to the implication is made. The full quote:

"The text of Kelly's post suggested he had impulsively bought the AR-15 not for his own use, but to make a point about the laxity of required background checks for such weapons and/or to get the weapon out of circulation by turning it over to the police." He posted the update on Facebook accompanied by a picture of him making the purchase, a picture provided by himself.

If he was really purchasing the weapon for himself that he was publicly known for opposing, he would indeed be clueless... especially if he was taking pictures of himself buying it (for fun?). It's hard to believe that someone so clueless would be aware that his hypocrisy was about to be outed on a blog, so he quickly slapped this "excuse" together on facebook.

Considering he went on CNN and said that he is keeping his semi-automatic .45 handgun and adding it to the guns he and his wife own... you tell me!

Is he making speeches and public appearances against the 45?

[DigitalChaos]

@Jinsai - You were against the idea that he purchased the AR-15 on a whim. Try to stay consistant. I never once disagreed that he stated a supposed purpose. In fact, I've specifically called it out and said it doesn't match with his actions. Your extreme desire to defend Kelly is getting in the way of rationality, as usual.

The fact that you are now trying to explain WHY he bought the gun on a whim/impulsively tells me that you no longer argue against the point. That's the closest someone like you will ever get to saying "i'm wrong" or "i agree."

Once you agree about the impulsive nature of the purchase, the rest of his story starts to break down. No need to discuss it further.

[Deepvoid]

Don't got a plan. Just observing at this point.

So the threat is not imminent?

[Satyr]

So the threat is not imminent?

Do you really expect me to be able to answer this? The only things I know is that way in which the United States currently operates is not sustainable. We do need change....We are just going in the wrong direction.

[Deepvoid]

Do you really expect me to be able to answer this? The only things I know is that way in which the United States currently operates is not sustainable. We do need change....We are just going in the wrong direction.

Well if you thought the threat was imminent, you'd have a plan. You would be prepared.
So you don't believe a threat is imminent.

[DigitalChaos]

http://www.examiner.com/article/stoc...ss-than-a-week

I'll just leave this here.

The coverage on this stuff is so shitty that it's almost impossible to do any verification but...

$4.5mil over 5 years for gun parts - Without knowing how many DHS people there are and how many guns, it's hard to know if this is a anything out of the ordinary. I could easily see this needed just for training. Also, I bet that this is a purchase option contract. That was certainly the case with the freakout about the fuckload of ammo. Purchase options mean you have a maximum you are allowed to buy, under contract, over that time period. It doesn't obligate you to. The ammo contract is being split with ICE too. Read the press release from the company who scored the contract: http://atk.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=25280&item=124123

2700 MRAPs - I can't find the release, but Navistar Defense, L.L.C. won this contract. Its for the retrofit a bunch of existing MRAPS. Pretty sure most are going to Afghanistan and the contract is with the Marines.



edit: don't get me wrong, I think the DHS is a giant waste of money. The credibility on the DHS freakouts are just very lacking.

Actually, here is the press release on the 2717 MRAPs: http://media.navistar.com/index.php?s=43&item=533

Here is some credible reporting on the MRAP topic: http://www.businessinsider.com/homel...ts-mrap-2013-3
Yea, the DHS has 16 MRAPs. They've also had them since at least 2008. It makes it kind of hard to complain about that when everyone is running around bitching about "2700+ Obama war tanks."

Always stay skeptical!

[Jinsai]

@Jinsai - You were against the idea that he purchased the AR-15 on a whim. Try to stay consistant. I never once disagreed that he stated a supposed purpose. In fact, I've specifically called it out and said it doesn't match with his actions. Your extreme desire to defend Kelly is getting in the way of rationality, as usual.

The fact that you are now trying to explain WHY he bought the gun on a whim/impulsively tells me that you no longer argue against the point. That's the closest someone like you will ever get to saying "i'm wrong" or "i agree."

Once you agree about the impulsive nature of the purchase, the rest of his story starts to break down. No need to discuss it further.

You're hanging on the word "impulsive." His own facebook post implies that the purchase was impulsive. You can do something impulsive that has an intended purpose. Just because it was an impulsive decision to buy it doesn't mean he was therefore planning to keep it.

Why does it matter whether or not he planned in advance, before going into the gun shop, to buy the AR15? What matters is the purpose. If he's got a picture of himself buying the gun, you'd think he was planning to go from there to do something else with it, other than (as you implied) keeping it for himself and adding it to his collection.

I'm actually not "desperate to defend" him here. I'm not even sure if I completely understand why he's become a figure in the debate about the AR15, or if I agree with his special distinction against the AR15. I'm more on board with where he stands on closing gun show loopholes and improving background checks. I just think the likelihood that he would buy the gun for himself is incredibly unlikely, and that the purchase was intended to be a stunt (hence the photograph). The alternative implies a gotcha moment that requires him to be so completely lacking in self awareness that it is incredibly hard to believe.

[Satyr]

Well if you thought the threat was imminent, you'd have a plan. You would be prepared.
So you don't believe a threat is imminent.

My plan is to move to Canada if the US collapsed....Then see how long it took Canada to collapse.

[Jinsai]

My plan is to move to Canada if the US collapsed....Then see how long it took Canada to collapse.

And once Canada collapses (after years of you living in the country as an illegal immigrant) where will you go then?! Don't you think it would be a better idea to run south of the border? Come on, let's be reasonable now! Mexico is totally a better escape route.

[DigitalChaos]

You're hanging on the word "impulsive." His own facebook post implies that the purchase was impulsive. You can do something impulsive that has an intended purpose. Just because it was an impulsive decision to buy it doesn't mean he was therefore planning to keep it.

Why does it matter whether or not he planned in advance, before going into the gun shop, to buy the AR15? What matters is the purpose. If he's got a picture of himself buying the gun, you'd think he was planning to go from there to do something else with it, other than (as you implied) keeping it for himself and adding it to his collection.

I'm actually not "desperate to defend" him here. I'm not even sure if I completely understand why he's become a figure in the debate about the AR15, or if I agree with his special distinction against the AR15. I'm more on board with where he stands on closing gun show loopholes and improving background checks. I just think the likelihood that he would buy the gun for himself is incredibly unlikely, and that the purchase was intended to be a stunt (hence the photograph). The alternative implies a gotcha moment that requires him to be so completely lacking in self awareness that it is incredibly hard to believe.

So... what would you say if there were pictures of his wife holding an AR-15 next to a classic self-defense styled paper target that she just got done shooting? ... or maybe even firing an AK-47?

Would you say that, maybe, they are hypocrites? Would you say it's more believable that Kelly actually wanted to own that AR-15?

Would you say that these pictures help or hurt their attempts to outlaw these guns?

[Jinsai]

So... what would you say if there were pictures of his wife holding an AR-15 next to a classic self-defense styled paper target that she just got done shooting? ... or maybe even firing an AK-47?

Would you say that, maybe, they are hypocrites? Would you say it's more believable that Kelly actually wanted to own that AR-15?

Would you say that these pictures help or hurt their attempts to outlaw these guns?

I would say with almost absolute certainty that those pictures were taken long before Kelly got involved in the campaign to have the AR-15 banned, which is important to determining the motivations behind his actions at this point. I'd also say that people's opinions can change, especially in the wake of your wife being shot (yes, I know she wasn't shot with an AR-15) before a string of massacres involving the AR-15. That's the kind of thing that might get you on board with insisting upon greater background checks for guns and lobbying to ban the AR-15.

Having shot an AR-15 in the past more implies that he might have had experience with the gun at some point, which was something you were implying earlier was a prerequisite to being able to offer an opinion on the matter in the first place...

Still, what is the story behind the pictures (as in when and the setting)?

[DigitalChaos]

I would say with almost absolute certainty that those pictures were taken long before Kelly got involved in the campaign to have the AR-15 banned, which is important to determining the motivations behind his actions at this point. I'd also say that people's opinions can change, especially in the wake of your wife being shot (yes, I know she wasn't shot with an AR-15) before a string of massacres involving the AR-15. That's the kind of thing that might get you on board with insisting upon greater background checks for guns and lobbying to ban the AR-15.

Having shot an AR-15 in the past more implies that he might have had experience with the gun at some point, which was something you were implying earlier was a prerequisite to being able to offer an opinion on the matter in the first place...

Still, what is the story behind the pictures (as in when and the setting)?

Yup. I would have to say that they are... emotionally compromised. They were both very pro-gun. They still are on many levels. I'm not faulting them for having their current views. It's just kind of fucked up to try and change national law because of a personal experience. That is pretty much the definition of hypocritical.

Those images were taken in 2010, prior to her being shot.

The Arizona law enforcement leaked them because they are getting pissed about the anti-gun stuff coming from them.
As damage control, Giffords posted them on facebook with her side of the story. She says the first (the AR-15) was part of a photo-op with the Tuscan PD of her testing guns that she helped secure guns for. Preeetty sure that's the civilian model though. Locals remember her doing several things like this to "look tough" as part of her campaigning.


This is the original leak... god I fucking hate linking to breitbart: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...rds-Photo-Leak

[Jinsai]

Yup. I would have to say that they are... emotionally compromised. They were both very pro-gun. They still are on many levels. I'm not faulting them for having their current views. It's just kind of fucked up to try and change national law because of a personal experience. That is pretty much the definition of hypocritical.

To be fair, that is nowhere near the definition of hypocrite. Experience can be educational. You've already asserted this. Still, both Gabby and her husband are still pro gun-ownership. Their main issue is that some weapons should require special background checking, and that background checks in general should be increased.

And maybe the Arizona law enforcement can take a breath and actually read Gabby's response which asserts that she still endorses the second amendment.

Why would the police get pissed over laws encouraging stricter background checks?

[Satyr]

And once Canada collapses (after years of you living in the country as an illegal immigrant) where will you go then?! Don't you think it would be a better idea to run south of the border? Come on, let's be reasonable now! Mexico is totally a better escape route.

Living in Ohio....I could just hop in a boat and less than an hour later. Canada! I'm sure Canada is a great place and would welcome US refugees with open arms. Hell, you guys are so great you would probably give us free shelter / food / healthcare.

[allegro]

I think Canada's kinda hoping you choose Mexico, instead, cowboy.

ps - if you ever ventured outside this thread, you'd know that Jinsai lives in California.

[Satyr]

I think Canada's kinda hoping you choose Mexico, instead, cowboy.

ps - if you ever ventured outside this thread, you'd know that Jinsai lives in California.

Oops I guess I got Jinsai and Deepvoid confused. Anyways there are too many icky guns in Mexico. Also I'm more likely to get free stuff from Canada as an illegal immigrant that I would in Mexico.

ps - I do venture outside this thread....just don't comment on much else.

[DigitalChaos]

Nobody ever guesses that I live in San Francisco. Well, except for the conservatives. I'm instantly "one of them liberal socialists" so I must be from SF. For the primary political lean of this subforum, I might as well be from Lubbock TX.

[Satyr]

Nobody ever guesses that I live in San Francisco. Well, except for the conservatives. I'm instantly "one of them liberal socialists" so I must be from SF. For the primary political lean of this subforum, I might as well be from Lubbock TX.

What are you saying to get conservatives to think you're from San Francisco?

[DigitalChaos]

What are you saying to get conservatives to think you're from San Francisco?

Legalize the drugs
Legalize gay marriage
Don't restrict abortion
don't restrict stem cell research
stop the war machine, defense is not offense. stop playing world police
Labor unions are just fine if people want them
fix immigration so it's easier for people to become citizens
fuck internet censorship
fuck unreasonable search and seizure
fuck who you want to fucking fuck, govt gets no fucking say
Anyone who is destroying the environment should be held accountable


I probably missed a few but you get the idea. Many people fall prey to false dichotomy. When you hear someone disagree with you, it AUTOMATICALLY means they are on the "other team."


There are alos plenty of times where I call someone out on a topic that I agree on but they are using bad data, fallacy, etc. My above comments about the DHS not really being as bad as people are saying is a mild example of what many conservatives would call "defending Obama."

[Jinsai]

thank god this thread has also turned into a discussion about libertarian values (I would ask who should hold people accountable for destroying the environment if not a government institution, but why don't we not go there).

while I'm here:

[DigitalChaos]

who should hold people accountable for destroying the environment if not a government institution

Uh, who enforces and protects rights to begin with? Libertarians aren't anarchists. They simply believe in reduced (aka minimal) government.

The libertarian approach to environmental destruction/pollution is through property rights.

"We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior."

[Jinsai]

Uh, who enforces and protects rights to begin with? Libertarians aren't anarchists. They simply believe in reduced (aka minimal) government.

The libertarian approach to environmental destruction/pollution is through property rights.

"We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior."

This was exactly why I didn't ask, because I don't want to hear about privatizing environmentalism (along with anything else that may come of the conversation) I said "why don't we not go there." Can we please not have this thread turn into a discussion about libertarianism?

[Satyr]

thank god this thread has also turned into a discussion about libertarian values (I would ask who should hold people accountable for destroying the environment if not a government institution, but why don't we not go there).

while I'm here:

Just curious. You see Sen. Feinstein as having won that argument? I think the point Cruz brought up was pretty pertinent. How would making a list of exempted books then claiming that they're enough for the American people be any different then a ban on books you deem harmful to society?

Maybe we should start banning books and information? How do you think Timothy McVeigh managed to make a bomb that killed 168 people?

[Jinsai]

Just curious. You see Sen. Feinstein as having won that argument? I think the point Cruz brought up was pretty pertinent. How would making a list of exempted books then claiming that they're enough for the American people be any different then a ban on books you deem harmful to society?

Maybe we should start banning books and information? How do you think Timothy McVeigh managed to make a bomb that killed 168 people?

Jesus... While you're talking about why we shouldn't ban guns, you bring up the fact that Timothy McVeigh managed to kill a bunch of people without a gun? What the fuck? This is only following your complete misunderstanding (apparently) of the harmful difference between books and high powered rifles. Enough with your distractions, but... for one moment, maybe...

Maybe because having restrictions on weapons that people are allowed to own is part of what keeps the average citizen from buying an RPG or a bazooka, or a billionaire from buying a nuclear bomb?

And maybe you're just lost in Ted Cruz's dreamy, condescending eyes?

[Satyr]

Jesus... While you're talking about why we shouldn't ban guns, you bring up the fact that Timothy McVeigh managed to kill a bunch of people without a gun? What the fuck? This is only following your complete misunderstanding (apparently) of the harmful difference between books and high powered rifles. Enough with your distractions, but... for one moment, maybe...

Maybe because having restrictions on weapons that people are allowed to own is part of what keeps the average citizen from buying an RPG or a bazooka, or a billionaire from buying a nuclear bomb?

And maybe you're just lost in Ted Cruz's dreamy, condescending eyes?

Nobody is advocating allowing the average citizen of buying an RPG or a nuclear bomb. Your hyperbole is simply that....hyperbole.

Can you answer me one question honestly? How did Timothy McVeigh manage to build a bomb of that magnitude? How did he gain that knowledge.

[Jinsai]

Nobody is advocating allowing the average citizen of buying an RPG or a nuclear bomb. Your hyperbole is simply that....hyperbole.

Anyone who says that there should be no restrictions on the second amendment is advocating exactly that.

Can you answer me one question honestly? How did Timothy McVeigh manage to build a bomb of that magnitude? How did he gain that knowledge.

This question is irrelevant. In order for your comparison to be adequate, we'd need an example where somebody built a high powered rifle from materials bought from the grocery store. Stop with the distractions that have nothing to do with the discussion. Come on. I believe in you.

[Satyr]

This question is irrelevant. In order for your comparison to be adequate, we'd need an example where somebody built a high powered rifle from materials bought from the grocery store. Stop with the distractions that have nothing to do with the discussion. Come on. I believe in you.

The question is pretty relevant. Timothy McVeigh used literature to kill 100+ people. He absolutely could not have built that bomb without it. Surely you'd be in favor of banning dangerous literature?

[Jinsai]

The question is pretty relevant. Timothy McVeigh used literature to kill 100+ people. He absolutely could not have built that bomb without it. Surely you'd be in favor of banning dangerous literature?

It's irrelevant to this thread because it has nothing to do with the provisions of the second amendment. However, if you want to insist that the second amendment be completely unregulated to the point where we are permitting weapons of mass destruction, sure, then we can start talking about Timothy McVeigh, and while we're at it we'll address how books are different from things designed to kill people.

[Deepvoid]

Watch out! Next step in the government's master plan to take away your guns.

A proposal by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to ban certain assault weapons and high-capacity magazines will be excluded from a Democratic-led gun reforms package

So that pretty seals the deal for the assault weapon ban debate.

What's next?