Wow, you are really thin-skinned.
So “baiting” is using your own words to discuss your own words. I am troll because I pointed out you were trolling? Really? Is that your defense?
I sort of agree, insofar as 12 year old threads have to be interpreted with care. I’ll give you my subjective memories of my subjective experience.
The board was more balanced back then vis a vis liberals vs conservatives. And I think pro-gunners had a slight edge, unlike now. ExTank was less fed up with abuse tossed at gun enthusiasts and played a role somewhat like Bone plays right now. That may or may not have been my first gun thread, but it was the first one I waded into in a serious way.
I started looking up citations. Reasonable posters played along, but one guy said that I was lying, at a time when such accusations were permitted in GD, because nobody had really thought the issue through. I was taken aback and frankly pissed off, since I had researched the issue online briefly but fairly carefully. After a couple of go-arounds, I started a pit thread, which wasn’t exactly usual for me at the time.
As an aside, note that the 2 posters who questioned my Tec-9 reference didn’t deal at all with the substance of my somewhat lengthy post. They just saw red when they viewed reference to that firearm model.
The (baseless) accusation wasn’t thought to be a big deal by the gun enthusiasts and was justified because of all the abuse they were sick of. I concluded that gun enthusiasts were fanatical - remember I had not received such treatment in other threads and heck I still think attitudes on this topic are pretty far out there.
Since then, I’ve conceived of a pro-gun argument that satisfies me, so I mostly limit my posting on the subject to attacks on the NRA, attacks on the NRA’s membership, and advocacy of a pro-consumer, pro-science gun enthusiast stance. Pitworthy stuff really, not GD.
As for transferring machine guns, here’s a link. I’ll add emphasis.
[INDENT]Due to a 1968 change in the law, it is unlawful for any federally licensed manufacturer, importer, dealer or collector to sell or deliver a machine gun except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General “consistent with public safety and necessity.” … ATF regulations require a manufacturer, importer, or dealer selling or delivering a machine gun to a member of the public to first obtain from the recipient a sworn statement stating the reasons why there is a reasonable necessity for such person to acquire the machine gun, and that such person’s receipt or possession of the machine gun would be consistent with public safety.21
The transferee of a firearm shall not take possession of the firearm unless ATF has approved the transfer and registration of the firearm to the transferee.22 The NFA also requires the transferor of a machine gun to pay a $200 tax for each transfer of a machine gun.23 ATF may make exceptions to this tax in certain circumstances.24
The term “transfer” includes selling, assigning, pledging, leasing, loaning, giving away, or otherwise disposing of the machine gun.25 [/INDENT] 26 U.S.C. § 5845(j); 27 C.F.R. § 479.11.
The law: INDENT Transfer
The term “transfer” and the various derivatives of such word, shall include selling, assigning, pledging, leasing,** loaning**, giving away, or otherwise disposing of. [/INDENT] 26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
I’m not surprised though that the ATF permits recreational shooting of machine guns. It’s a big tourist attraction, foreign and domestic and one that I happen to approve of. Then again, I approve of flamethrowers in the desert as well. It’s unfortunate that such activities can’t be regulated to exclude those under the age of consent and enforce licensed supervision, but that’s gun politics and ideology.
Just proves that guns don’t kill people 9 year old girls kill people.
My guess would be that any parents so insane they’d allow a 9 year old boy or girl either one to touch such a piece of equipment would have no thought that she might have permanent mental damage form it. It would be beyond their capacity to understand.
I have to admit, if the schmuck had survived, I wouldn’t object to him being charged with “loaning”, assuming he was medically capable of assisting in his defense.
Yes, I mentioned the clip/magazine thing exactly because it’s a pet peeve of some people. Which is exactly what that thread was about. It was said in this thread that people used critiques of nomenclature to dismiss (unrelated) arguments on the subject, as if a mistake in nomenclature invalidates anything you have to say. That example is clearly not like that, because no one is saying “you can’t have an opinion on gun issues because you got some nomenclature wrong” - that OP has nothing to do with gun control.
Really?
[QUOTE=Klaatu]
See, if I was listening to you guys on the news, I would immediately dismiss you as uninformed and pay no attention. That is not a good way to promote your message, whatever it may be.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Klaatu]
You can’t just be afraid of something and want to ban it, if you don’t know shit about it.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Klaatu]
“we don’t know shit about it, but it’s scary, so let’s get rid of it”
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Condescending Robot]
The low-information voter come to life.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kevbo]
Gun grabbers don’t want or need to know anything about what they seek to ban.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I didn’t read beyond the OP, but I’m not really impressed. That thread is talking mostly about reporters and some guy’s pet peeve about the incorrect usage of terms. The stuff about not knowing what you’re talking about when you advocate banning them comes up as a related issue. Most of the discussion revolves around misunderstandings about semi-automatics and fully automatics, a relevant issue to various debates, not a trivial word mix up.
The issue comes up a lot in assault weapon debates in particular - in which the sides that advocate for them are almost always misinformed as to what they actually entail. So the people advocating against them attempt to explain, but they’ll have none of that. They’re willfully ignorant and actually use the fact that people are trying to give them relevant information about what they’re advocating as something to be mocked or somehow paradoxically prove they’re right.
That’s the sort of thing that was being mocked in the thread when I interjected. People who were proud that they were ignorant about what they were advocating being banned, and who mocked those who would actually inform them of the issue.
Do you consider these to be equivalent incidents?
Case 1: girl shooting an Uzi on full auto loses control and kills the instructor / supervisor.
Case 2: boy shooting a single shot bolt action .22 is hit by a ricochet from either his rifle or potentially his father’s. Boy is expected to survive.
but…america!
I got past that years ago. Give up ? What ? Complaining ? I’m an American; it’s what we do, buddy. It’s what you’re doing.
Really ? There are some bricks, as well. Some here need to be hit by one. It’ll broaden your understanding as well as your head, possibly. They sell hats in all sizes.
This happens in old age. Literally.
Sad but true.
Not so sad. You get wiser, too.
That pointy one you’re wearing, does it come in a bowler style?