Really Biden?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MuddyPaws1, Jan 24, 2013.

  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    #1
    This is exactly the kind of garbage and misinformation I was talking about.

    First, if the pro side can not use the car comparison because "it is just silly", then the anti side should say the same thing about comparing a gun that can hold 11 rounds and fires .223 bullets to a F-15 or a M-1 tank.

    Second, automatic weapons are already highly regulated and you can't just go out and buy one. I have zero chance in getting one....UNLESS...I drive down to DC and buy on off the street for a couple hundred dollars. But i'm not a criminal, so I haven't done that. NONE of the mass killings were performed with an automatic weapon. An AR-15, a so called assault weapon, that looks like this all scary and fully decked out, like mine (this is not mine but mine is similar, my wife also has one but her's is PINK) :

    [​IMG]

    The AR-15 that you can buy in the USA is NOT an automatic weapon. NOT.

    Again, are they really ignorant enough to think that the criminals give 2 sh#ts about the laws?

    Again, misinformation used to incite fear. Did ANYONE say to give firearms to untrained people and send them into schools? NO. Who in their right mind would even suggest that? No one. Every state that allows teachers to carry requires them to take many more safety classes than the normal concealed carry permit holder. Classes specifically developed for this type of carry permit. Classes developed and administered many times by the state police.
     
  2. danpass, Jan 24, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2013

    macrumors 68020

    danpass

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #2
    Automatic weapons made before 1986 (the month of May I believe) can be purchased by an individual by paying a $200 fee with paperwork done on ATF Form 4, plus the price of the firearm paid to the seller.

    Due to the fixed supply seller prices are pretty high (like $15,000 for a genuine M16) and the transfer is done from individual to individual thru a Class III Federal Firearms dealer using the previously mentioned paperwork.


    In a nutshell.



    Oh ...... that bipod is outrageous lol. And I see only one magazine, what's wrong with you? :D


    If it was about controlling criminal behavior then the penalties for criminal behavior would be higher. But its not and as you noted it is pointless to blame the majority for the acts of the minority.

    It's about control.
     
  3. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #3
    Most criminals and illegal weapons dealers get their weapons from a middle man who can obtain them legally.

    (Not directed towards you). But I hate the some people think most criminals obtained weapons from stealling them and/or robbing homes. That probably accounts for less than 5% of the illegal guns on the streets.
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #4
    I know right? We should totally legalize rape and murder as well because it's not like criminals care that they're illegal anyway....
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #5
    No, we shouldn't legalize rape and murder, but, do you think that the laws criminalizing these actions prevent them from taking place? Any of them?
     
  6. macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #6
    I think that was his point.
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #7
    No, I think you totally missed his point.
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    spork183

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #8
    Uh, all males armed for rape. You not saying we should disarm? :eek:

    I think the point was, we still have the laws, even though criminals will break them. If criminals wouldn't break them, they wouldn't be, well, criminals.

    Gun lobby has been so hardline for so long, that a move back toward the middle will be very hard to do. Lets face it, polling America, the current NRA position is not the middle.
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #9
    Believe me, I am NO fan of the "gun lobby" or the NRA, and have said so numerous times in this forum. They have their positions so wrong it's offensive to most responsible firearms owners.
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    spork183

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #10
    Think back on your highschool teachers: You really want Mrs. Smith packing? I don't care how much training she has. She'd put a cap in you for looking sideways. We didn't even want her to have a ruler.
     
  11. Prof., Jan 24, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2013

    macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #11
    I used to support the "assault" weapons ban, until I talked with a friend who is ex-military. I'm now siding with gun owners. There's no such thing as an Assault rifle. It is just a term liberals coined to scare people into agreeing with them when it came to banning big scary guns.

    We need to work on improving our mental health system. The mental health of our country is horrible. 1 in 5 adults has a mental illness - that is asinine. Finally, we need to work on reducing the socioeconomic gap that gets wider and wider every day. Crimes are committed due to the ever increasing lack of opportunity in this so-called land of opportunity.

    One last note: mandatory military or public service; we need to do it. two years in the military or two years in a public works job.

    For the record, I'm a liberal.
     
  12. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #12

    This is simply factually incorrect and goes to show why you shouldn't get your political talking points from friends. It was the firearms manufacturers who started to use the term in advertising back in the 1980s.




    Gunowners are just as liable to be sucked into marketing, merchandising and new toys as anyone. And give me a break with the crocodile tears about mental illness... unless you support expanding Medicaid.


    In regards to Biden, I'll just leave this clip here. Watch it to the end and judge whether the broad center of Americans agree with him about the kinds of sad cases that are attracted to this kind of weaponry.


     
  13. macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #13
    I don't, I support rolling all the programs into on single payer national program.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #14

    That isn't true. Assault rifle is a defined real term. Assault weapon isn't.
    Talk to your ex-military friend again and I'm sure he will explain it to you.
     
  15. macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #15
    For all of Biden's verbal gaffes, what he said was just perfect. I had exactly the same reaction. That guy's question was bizarre.
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #16
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

    tell that to Diane Feinstein.

    In any case....data proves that with the exception of recent events these guns are hardly used in shootings. Statistically they are in the minority.

    Also, these are not military weapons, they look like them but are not. Even some of the the features on them can't be used. FOr instance they have bayonet lugs on them but you can't really mount a bayonet on them properly.

    Also, you can pretty much make any gun look evil, which really seems to be the issue for many (that they look military).

    I can easily take a remington 700 hunting rifle and turn it around so it looks more "military", but that does not make it any more deadly.
     

    Attached Files:

  17. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    #17
    You really think that if some teachers were armed, they would just shoot a kid for not bringing in their homework?

    Incredible.
     
  18. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    #18
    Saw on the news this morning....Diane Feinstein just said that these weapons have one purpose, military use where they shoot from the hip and spray a large area to cause the most death.

    Made me think of this.....

    [​IMG]

    This is an insult to our men and women in the military. She has no clue. This isn't reality.
     
  19. macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #19
    Rambo is firing an M60, they can be shoulder fired and are weapons to "spray a large area and cause the most death"

    Now the weapons she's talking about not so much.
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    bad03xtreme

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Location:
    Northern, VA
    #20
    John Boehner needs to bring Dianne Feinstein's bill to the floor for an up or down vote just the way it is with no amendments and see if all these hard core gun control Democrats will actually pass it. They will be forced to vote yes or no and then face the consequences in the midterm elections next year. They will never pass this bill, they are just grandstanding and have wasted 6 weeks now instead of focusing on the real problems the country faces like the budget.
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    spork183

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #21
    Um, please install the Humor/Sarcasm filter. Available at many on and offline sites. But whatever you do, don't look up "gullible" in the dictionary. They left that word out. :rolleyes:
     
  22. samiwas, Jan 25, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2013

    macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #22
    Mental health isn't a one-stop shop for people who shouldn't own a gun. Take my mother. No mental health issues. No criminal history. She meets all the legal requirements to own and probably carry a gun. But the very thought of her owning a firearm scares the living crap out of me. And it should scare the crap out of anyone within firing distance. I guarantee you that if she were to carry a gun, someone would be dead or wounded within a year, if not a month. This is the person who nearly rips the handle out of the ceiling of my car when I change lanes, because she is THAT skittish. Her first piece of advice when I was having some trouble refinancing? "Sue them!" Her first reaction to the charity guy collecting money at an intersection knocking on her window would be to fire and ask questions later. Its just the type of person she is.

    Now, the question is: how do you keep guns out of the hands of people like this? Truth is: maybe you can't. Short of having every person who applies for a gun go through not only deep background checks and mental health checks, you'd have them go through several days' worth of training and vetting/competency classes. Oh wait!! That is a solution...but that seems to be too much for some people.


    Define "trained". Going to a 10-hour course does not (to me) equal someone trained to carry a gun into a school. Think about it: that's ONE DAY of training. My class for electrical formulas was longer than that. Now, you say that teachers who want to carry are given much more thorough training and testing.

    OK, so...would anyone actually suggest that?

    So yes. Someone has suggested that ANYONE who can legally carry should be able to carry into a school. And there were other posts encouraging that fact, I'm pretty sure (don't have time at the moment to scour every thread).
     
  23. Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #23
    Well it's more so used to lay down suppresive fire

    The biggest problem I've had with this whole discussion has been with getting facts straight and taking emotion out of it.

    When you have guys like our VP (I voted for him) going on air and saying we need to ban automatic weapons, it's just dishonest. Especially when you have to face the fact that these "scary looking weapons" simply are not the problem.

    Here are a couple of things we should keep in mind

    1. The vast majority of gun related homicides by far are by handguns

    2. More than 2/3rds of gun related fatalities are accidents and suicides. 1 you can't fix, the other is a personal choice and/or a problem we can fix
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #24
    I was replying to someone confusing an assault rifle for an assault weapon.
    When someone says

    'There's no such thing as an Assault rifle.'

    they are wrong and just lazily repeating a talking point without any understanding. Obviously all terms for guns are man made but assault rifles have existed since WW2.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44

    Something that shoots 550 rounds a minute should not be in civilian hands.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    spork183

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #25
    If you live in Oakland, or any other number of high gun violence cities around the country, probably doesn't feel like 6 wasted weeks. When you looking at over 1000 shootings/year, and whole segments of the population afraid to go outside, probably feel like 6 weeks is a drop in the bucket if it knocks down future gun availability. Of course we don't have to worry about that, because it's NIMBY.

    The eventual backlash from the Gun Lobby's unwillingness to be reasonable will be disproportionate, and then all we'll hear is how unreasonable the Liberal hardliners are. There is no happy medium with extremists driving rhetoric on both sides.

    You call it 6 wasted weeks without focusing on "real problems", but then you make veiled threats about what will happen (election wise) to people who don't vote the gun lobby line. Are you really willing to make a yea or nay on gun control the all-important litmus test for congressional competence? Let me know how that works for you.

    analyzing-gun-violence-in-oakland/
     

Share This Page