I thought it was just me. Anyway, it’s worth continuing to address him so his failure to respond can appear what it appears to be.
Una, when you get a grip, let us all know. m’lkay? Your attempts at evading the damn point are getting desperate to the point of hysteria.
I’m saying that the statement I responded to was factually incorrect, and I accuse that it is deliberately such as it is made by someone with a long and known history of lying about the subject of gun control when convenient.
One can certainly debate the effectiveness of various gun control measures, as well as the whole concept of gun control. One can debate what effect it would have had on this tragedy. I’m not doing that right now, and won’t do that in this specific forum.
I hope that even the most die-hard anti-gun “melt them all into Stanley screwdrivers” person on this message board will cheerfully concede the facts of the Clinton AWB, a matter of public record, easily Googled, and discussed innumerable times on this message board.
I missed where you admitted you were wrong. Maybe it’s in “Times Invisible” font? Stupid web browser…
But seriously, I call you on another one of your lies, and you show you have no intellectual honesty or honour. And I’m the one who needs to “get a grip?” This belies a serious disconnect with reality, or else a serious lack of respect for fact as long as it furthers your political agenda as a poster.
You know, I wasn’t totally serious about you being unbalanced with your stalking Bricker and all, but now I’m starting to wonder.
Here’s a kung-fu grip right back at you, “Wile Elvis Coyote” - stop spending so much time stalking people, start dealing with fact.
500 quatloos that the newcomer is untrainable and will have to be destroyed.
^:dubious:^
CMC fnord!
I will send you an autograph for $19.95 and a SASE.
By the way, who’s the new sock?
Damn it, I should have remembered you…my sincere apologies for connecting your name with someone like ElvisL1ves.
Fuck it, just keep the goddam things, if they mean that much to you. Muzzle tov, much good may they do you. There is no practical means available to ban them, or even significantly reduce their number, even if we had the political will to do so. Most of us would shrug off such an effort, not caring that much one way or another. But there is a segment of our population that would resist such an effort as though we were determined to castrate them with pliers.
Every once in a while, somebody suffering from poisonous brain chemicals is going to go berserk, and kill a bunch of us. We can’t get used to it, but there ain’t shit we can do about it.
Me, I kinda like guns, as objects, as examples of engineering. Be perfectly happy to take a .22 to the arroyo and plink some beer cans, so long as the cans were empty when we arrive, and not emptied on the spot. And if the government takes that away, I would miss it.
But I can still go fishing, so really, who cares?
So, no one wants my autograph? Well, I guess it’s back to selling my body for extra cash.
The facts on why the Clinton AWB would not have “…prevented Loughner from firing more than 10 bullets from a legal gun…”
From: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:1:./temp/~c103C4Bt8J:e650830:
Emphasis added.
Just don’t use that cash to buy anything from ACME. I hear they have some bad reviews…
That paragraph can be eliminated.
I don’t know. The guy is only 22. If the ban had remained in effect, what do you think the chances are that he would have been able to legally obtain the larger magazines? (since he legally bought the gun, I’m making the assumption he would have restricted his purchases to legal ones)
Hey, Bricker, please respond to post 110 in this thread when you get a chance. Thanks!
Allow me to explain further - all existing magazines at the time of passage of the bill were not banned under the Clinton AWB. These numbered perhaps in the hundreds of millions (some references claim “billions”, but I have my doubts) at the time of passage. They could be bought, sold, traded, given as Easter gifts, etc. forever, so long as they existed. (The same with the assault weapons themselves, FTR.)
As a result, even if the Clinton AWB had been extended with no additional modifications added to it to be in force right now, I could still drive a couple of miles to the gun shop right now and buy as many high-capacity pre-ban magazines as my credit card would allow me to. And as many pre-ban assault weapons, too.
In addition, since almost all magazines (outside of government ones) have no serial numbers or other identifying marks on them as to their date of manufacture, this allowed illegal magazines to be made and/or shipped into the US with near-impunity, relying on the honesty of the seller. I realize that these however would be illegal under the AWB, so I’m not including those as examples, just providing additional information.
Absolutely, as can almost anything in the law. But it was not eliminated, until the entire portion of the Act which was subject to the 10-year “sunset” provision was eliminated, and that’s the point of fact here.
The rest of us are discussing the forest. You’re obsessed by a leaf, and indignantly denouncing any suggestion that there’s more to discuss. That’s "“the point of fact here”.
You’ll never find that grip unless you start looking for it.
While I think the targets in question can be arguably seen as less disturbing, it’s still the DLC we’re talking about, not the “left” as Bricker put it. The DLC is closer to Dick Cheney than they are to the “left.” They are pretty close to the neocons on many issues, and are even pro-gun (which is why I’m not a fan of their use of targets), although they’d like a bit more safety in firearms than the NRA would advocate.
Bricker’s brush-off of the difference between DLC/DNC (and that doesn’t even take into account the difference between the DLC and the “left”) was underplaying how large of a difference it can be.
Yes, but let’s face it – this is not a condemnation brimming withoutrage. You acknowledge that it’s over the line, you have no choice but to condemn it… but I don’t get the sense that your rage burns with the fury of a thousand suns or anything.
Nationally prominent? Yes. Respected? No. She has a limited populist appeal, but in terms of serious commentators, pundits, and power brokers I absolutely disagree that she is respected.
Yes, but that awareness should be balanced by reasonableness. If, for example, I think carbon output from factories will doom the planet in fifty years unless its stopped, I have a right to say so, even if it causes an unbalanced person to bomb a factory and even if I am aware of that general risk.
I notice you still haven’t dredged up the decency, despite your several subsequent posts, to admit you were completely and utterly wrong. I mean really, do you have such low self-esteem? I think your not admitting such and trying instead to turn this around on me speaks volumes.
Furthermore, you’re lying on another front about my “indignantly denouncing any suggestion that there’s more to discuss.” Anyone who can read this thread sees what’s going on, so I’ll let them decide. You’re exhibiting enough delusional behavior that I’m starting to see why you’re so anti-gun in the first place: you might be on one of the prohibited persons list under the Federal regulations.
But then I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised; this is the same old typical “deny, derail, distract” tactic you use in Great Debates when someone cleans your clock over there - like Bricker, who IIRC cleaned your clock so many times that you resorted to personal attacks in several threads across this board, until he, apparently, finally decided you had no value whatsoever. He must really be living inside your head for much of each day for you to carry on your anti-Bricker crusade as you have.
In my eleven years on this board, I have only had one poster on ignore… and you ain’t he. And you must know this… I don’t recall the last time I directly responded to you, but it can’t have been that long ago…