Tippmann Paintball Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > News And Views > Thoughts and Opinions
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

gun control humor
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
merc View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
American Scotchy

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: VA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7112 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote merc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: gun control humor
    Posted: 21 April 2009 at 8:42pm
this is not for or against gun control this is just making fun of one chick who put up legislation without understanding it.

edit: make fun of me for being to nub to post the link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo&feature=related

Edited by merc - 21 April 2009 at 8:42pm
saving the world, one warship at a time.
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 8:45pm
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9204 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 8:54pm
I see nothing wrong with that.

Big deal she doesn't know what a barrel shroud is. She still knew that the "more important" part is larger capacity clips.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
merc View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
American Scotchy

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: VA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7112 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote merc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 8:58pm
your trying to put a law in effect that is going to effect HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people and its not a big deal she doesnt understand what its saying...
saving the world, one warship at a time.
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3778 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 9:05pm
Originally posted by merc merc wrote:

your trying to put a law in effect that is going to effect HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people and its not a big deal she doesnt understand what its saying...


You are clearly confused.

MAYBE a hundred million.  That's a big maybe.  I highly doubt -- although I haven't gone digging -- that 200,000+ Americans own affected weapons.

Also, legislation, even when submitted by one person, is affected by a large number of people.  That's why they have interns -- to explain what all that crap is.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
merc View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
American Scotchy

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: VA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7112 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote merc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 9:07pm
population of the USA > 300mil, (not counting future generations)

if an AWB is passed it will effect anyone in the USA who is eligible to legal own a firearm. (not who already has one)
saving the world, one warship at a time.
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9204 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 9:08pm
Way to cover up your mess up.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
merc View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
American Scotchy

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: VA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7112 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote merc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 9:09pm
^what mess?
saving the world, one warship at a time.
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3778 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 9:12pm
Originally posted by merc merc wrote:

population of the USA > 300mil, (not counting future generations)

if an AWB is passed it will effect anyone in the USA who is eligible to legal own a firearm. (not who already has one)


This proves it.

YOU'RE. WRONG.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6839 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 9:20pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

I see nothing wrong with that.

Big deal she doesn't know what a barrel shroud is. She still knew that the "more important" part is larger capacity clips.
 
I see alot wrong with that.
 
I see this as further proof of gun legislation from people who view guns as the root of all evil and are generally ignorant to who the laws will affect and even more important what they're regulating.
 
A barrel shroud doesn't make a weapon deadly, and neither does a high capacity clip. The person firing it makes it a deadly weapon.
 
Legislation should be going after the person, not the gun. /story
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9204 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 9:28pm
You can't go after the person until they commit the crime.

Regulation of the weapon they will use and limiting their ability to shoot as many bullets as quickly is a good way to stop some deaths.

It may not be the best way, and they will obviously be able to get the banned items, but they will not be as readily available. Especially to people like kids who want to shoot up a school, or guys who just decide they are crazy and want to ill things(where are they going to get illegal weapons?)
Que pasa?


Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3778 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 9:47pm
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

I see nothing wrong with that.

Big deal she doesn't know what a barrel shroud is. She still knew that the "more important" part is larger capacity clips.
 
I see alot wrong with that.
 
I see this as further proof of gun legislation from people who view guns as the root of all evil and are generally ignorant to who the laws will affect and even more important what they're regulating.
 
A barrel shroud doesn't make a weapon deadly, and neither does a high capacity clip. The person firing it makes it a deadly weapon.
 
Legislation should be going after the person, not the gun. /story


No, the bullets make it a deadly weapon.  Without that, it's a club.

The government simply isn't allowed to regulate what people think, and also isn't particularly good at it anyway.  It is, however, allowed to regulate what they buy.

The fact that there aren't MUCH stiffer regulations on pistols is the thing that nags me the most.  Assault weapons are not a key concern, unless you're Mexican.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
GI JOES SON View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Got me flowers for my birthday

Joined: 10 July 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4946 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GI JOES SON Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 10:00pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:



No, the bullets make it a deadly weapon.  Without that, it's a club.



sometimes its a spear, depending on whether or not you mount the bayonet. frankly, i prefer a spear over a club
Back to Top
JohnnyCanuck View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
In soviet Canuckistan...

Joined: 08 July 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1463 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JohnnyCanuck Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 10:01pm
Originally posted by merc merc wrote:

population of the USA > 300mil, (not counting future generations)

if an AWB is passed it will effect anyone in the USA who is eligible to legal own a firearm. (not who already has one)

Technically yes, but not everyone in the USA wants to own a firearm.
Imagine there’s a picture of your favourite thing here.
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3778 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 10:25pm
Originally posted by GI JOES SON GI JOES SON wrote:

Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:



No, the bullets make it a deadly weapon.  Without that, it's a club.



sometimes its a spear, depending on whether or not you mount the bayonet. frankly, i prefer a spear over a club


I had forgotten all about those.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 996 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 11:10pm
I have to admit that I absolutely love it when people are correctly called out for trying to cover up ignorance.  I thoroughly enjoyed that clip, and I don't particularly care for Tucker Carlson.  Good on him for not letting her get away.
 
On numbers - while the current population of the US is in excess of 300 million, the number of eligible gun owners is significantly lower than that.  Minors are generally ineligible, and under GCA68 (as amended), the following categories of people are also ineligible (list courtesy of Wiki):
  1. Anyone who has been convicted in a federal court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
  2. Anyone who has been convicted in a state court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 2 years, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
  3. Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
  4. Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
  5. Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
  6. Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa.
  7. Anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
  8. Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
  9. Anyone that is subject to a court order that retrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.
  10. Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Additionally, under various state laws there are many other ways in which you can lose your right to own a gun. 
 
The no minors rule obviously excludes millions.  On the list above, the big ones (I would think) are 1, 2, 4, and 10.  Keep in mind that there are millions of convicted felons, and that marijuana is a controlled substance.
 
My off the cuff guess is that if you add it all up, and apply the rules strictly, there are fewer than 100 million technically eligible gun owners in the US.
 
/nerd
 
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 996 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 11:27pm
Actually, all this talk of the AWB raises an old question of mine.  I figure this place, with the heavy concentration of gun geeks, is a decent place for an answer.
 
A regular knock on the AWB is that it basically prohibits guns with certain cosmetic features.  Like banning red cars.
 
That makes a great slogan and is a fairly persuasive argument, but is it really true?  All of the listed features in the AWB are (obviously) popular on various military weapons.  My experience with military weapons is that they generally are not big on cosmetic features.  Instead, they tend to favor function.  So if all/most modern assault rifles feature pistol grips, that tells me that there is some non-cosmetic benefit to a pistol grip.
 
And as I go down the list (it has been a while), most of the features now seem pretty functional.  One might wonder whether these features are the best basis for regulation, but I must admit that the AWB no longer seems quite as bizarrely silly as I thought a decade ago.
 
What am I missing here?

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6839 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 11:37pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Actually, all this talk of the AWB raises an old question of mine.  I figure this place, with the heavy concentration of gun geeks, is a decent place for an answer.
 
A regular knock on the AWB is that it basically prohibits guns with certain cosmetic features.  Like banning red cars.
 
That makes a great slogan and is a fairly persuasive argument, but is it really true?  All of the listed features in the AWB are (obviously) popular on various military weapons.  My experience with military weapons is that they generally are not big on cosmetic features.  Instead, they tend to favor function.  So if all/most modern assault rifles feature pistol grips, that tells me that there is some non-cosmetic benefit to a pistol grip.
 
And as I go down the list (it has been a while), most of the features now seem pretty functional.  One might wonder whether these features are the best basis for regulation, but I must admit that the AWB no longer seems quite as bizarrely silly as I thought a decade ago.
 
What am I missing here?
 
The parts about the AWB that always mystified me were the telescoping stocks and the bayonet lugs. Lets be honest, how many killing sprees have involved a bayonet? I'm sure they've happened, but I doubt they happen often enough to denote regulation.
 
 
 
Originally posted by H.R.6257 H.R.6257 wrote:

    (a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:

    `(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
    `(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

        `(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

          `(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

          `(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

          `(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

          `(iv) Colt AR-15;

          `(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

          `(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

          `(vii) Steyr AUG;

          `(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

          `(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

        `(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

          `(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

          `(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

          `(iii) a bayonet mount;

          `(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

          `(v) a grenade launcher;

        `(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

          `(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

          `(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

          `(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

          `(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

          `(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

        `(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

          `(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

          `(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

          `(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

          `(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.


Edited by stratoaxe - 21 April 2009 at 11:39pm
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6839 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 11:40pm
Also, from Wiki-
 
Originally posted by Wikipedia Wikipedia wrote:

On the April 18, 2007 showing of MSNBC's program, Tucker, Tucker Carlson interviewed McCarthy concerning the Virginia Tech massacre and her proposed reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban. He asked her to explain the need to regulate barrel shrouds, one of the many provisions of the Act.[11] She responded that more importantly the legislation would ban large capacity "clips" used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen were those used by gangs and police killers. However she was in error. The Virginia Tech shooter did not have high capacity magazines. They were the legal, 10 round variety. After admitting that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, she ventured a guess, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up". Again, she was wrong. 
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 996 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2009 at 11:51pm
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

 
The parts about the AWB that always mystified me were the telescoping stocks and the bayonet lugs. Lets be honest, how many killing sprees have involved a bayonet? I'm sure they've happened, but I doubt they happen often enough to denote regulation.
 
 
Forget lugs and stocks - assault weapons in general aren't involved in enough crimes to merit special legislation.  Hi-cap magazines, maybe, but not the assault weapons.
 
But my theory on your question (and mine too) is that the feature list was not drafted by somebody worried about the criminal use of a particular feature, but as a general attempt to capture "military-style" weapons.
 
I suspect that the driving force behind the AWB was cosmetics, but the end result appears to be a list that is not entirely irrational.
 
Bayonet lugs obviously make the gun potentially more dangerous - very functional.  Folding stocks make a powerful weapon concealable.  Fixed-stock weapons are hard to hide, and stock-less large weapons are harder to aim/control.  In both cases I think you are right that we would have to look hard for crimes where those features specifically led to additional deaths, but at least in theory they both make the weapon more effective for man-killin'.
 
 
EDIT - oh, and I love saying "clips."  Makes all the gun geeks really mad.  Good lulz.
 


Edited by Peter Parker - 21 April 2009 at 11:52pm

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.453 seconds.