Posted: 8/8/2012 5:28:09 PM EDT
|
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-07/semi-automatic-thinking-on-gun-control
Lautenberg, Sugarmann, and their allies would like to see a revival of the 10-round limit on magazine capacity that was included in the ill-fated assault weapons “ban.” Again, personally, I don’t think such a limit would seriously interfere with anyone’s Second Amendment rights.
|
|
Quoted:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-07/semi-automatic-thinking-on-gun-control Lautenberg, Sugarmann, and their allies would like to see a revival of the 10-round limit on magazine capacity that was included in the ill-fated assault weapons “ban.” Again, personally, I don’t think such a limit would seriously interfere with anyone’s Second Amendment rights.
Currently, pending legislative proposals to restrict magazine capacity—which are D.O.A. because they have no support from the White House and, in any event, face massive opposition in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives—have little chance of deterring a purposeful mass killer. Why? Because the measures would not ban possession of existing equipment, let alone authorize confiscation of the millions of large-capacity magazines already in private hands. Good thing, too. Can you imagine being the sheriff in a rural county given the mission of confiscating people’s pistol magazines (or, for that matter, military-style rifles)? It would lead to civil insurrection.
You cherry-pick and quote out of context the on negative quote in an ontherwise fair article. Not only fair but absolutely astonishing from an article in Bloomberg (yes, THAT Bloomberg owns it!) People really need to read the whole article. |
|
Crazy nuts are crazy nuts.
The worse school murder is still Bath, Michigan where the guy blew up the school house. Timonth McVeigh didn't use firearms to kill. The 9/11 Hijackers used box cutters for God's sake. You're not going to even make a speed bump in the road to crazy with a so called "high cap" ban. |
|
Quoted:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-07/semi-automatic-thinking-on-gun-control Lautenberg, Sugarmann, and their allies would like to see a revival of the 10-round limit on magazine capacity that was included in the ill-fated assault weapons “ban.” Again, personally, I don’t think such a limit would seriously interfere with anyone’s Second Amendment rights.
Then offer the amendment with zero exemptions. If it's not an infringement, then the Government should have no problem without them either. Fucktards. |
|
Quoted:
I don't think sodomizing him would interfere with his anal-virginity status. 
Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the nonprofit Violence Policy Center and one of the country’s smartest gun-control activists,
If he's the brightest of the bunch, their aggregate IQ must be down in the room temperature range.... |
|
Quoted:
You cherry-pick and quote out of context the on negative quote in an ontherwise fair article. Nothing is out of context. It would be out of context if I posted a comment from an article just to have something to complain about and didn't provide a link so you can read the whole thing for yourself, as I've seen some people do. I do the opposite, I give you the link and withold my comments until later in the discussion. When I see an interesting article that I think would interest others, I post it to get some discussion going and read other peoples' opinions on it. I usually learn a few things from the resulting discussion, or at least hear some different points of view that I hadn't thought of. But I've been bitched at for posting articles without including a blurb from it to help people decide if they want to read it (even though it would only take one additional click for them to find out). To make them happy, I include a blurb from the article. But if the first couple of paragraphs don't really don't say anything meaningful that makes a blurb worth the trouble, then I choose something from elsewhere in the article that actually says something. When I do that, I'm accused of trying to put my own spin on it. Can't please everyone. I like learning new things from the discussions here, so I'll continue posting articles as long as it's allowed. If you don't like my method, you're always free to put me on your ignore list, or simply skip over my threads. There are plenty of others to read. |
| Just had a conversation with a libtard the other day who was insisting the 10 round limit was the solution. After talking for a while, I was surprised that he even knew what a magazine was. There was discussion of rapid spray firing, assault weapons, mass carnage, etc. I swear, they just pick up these key words from the media and run with them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You cherry-pick and quote out of context the on negative quote in an ontherwise fair article. Nothing is out of context. It would be out of context if I posted a comment from an article just to have something to complain about and didn't provide a link so you can read the whole thing for yourself, as I've seen some people do. I do the opposite, I give you the link and withold my comments until later in the discussion. When I see an interesting article that I think would interest others, I post it to get some discussion going and read other peoples' opinions on it. I usually learn a few things from the resulting discussion, or at least hear some different points of view that I hadn't thought of. But I've been bitched at for posting articles without including a blurb from it to help people decide if they want to read it (even though it would only take one additional click for them to find out). To make them happy, I include a blurb from the article. But if the first couple of paragraphs don't really don't say anything meaningful that makes a blurb worth the trouble, then I choose something from elsewhere in the article that actually says something. When I do that, I'm accused of trying to put my own spin on it. Can't please everyone. I like learning new things from the discussions here, so I'll continue posting articles as long as it's allowed. If you don't like my method, you're always free to put me on your ignore list, or simply skip over my threads. There are plenty of others to read. The problem is many people will fixate on the one quote you provide and never even bother to read the article, which was not on the whole anti-gun!. Yet they will feel free to comment nonetheless. |
|
Lautenberg, Sugarmann, and their allies would like to see a revival of the 10-round limit on magazine capacity that was included in the ill-fated assault weapons “ban.” Again, personally, I don’t think such a limit would seriously interfere with anyone’s Second Amendment rights.
Yeah, well, shut up. You're paid to flog the keyboard for a shitty business magazine. Nobody cares what you think. |
|
Quoted:
Lautenberg, Sugarmann, and their allies would like to see a revival of the 10-round limit on magazine capacity that was included in the ill-fated assault weapons “ban.” Again, personally, I don’t think such a limit would seriously interfere with anyone’s Second Amendment rights.
Yeah, well, shut up. You're paid to flog the keyboard for a shitty business magazine. Nobody cares what you think. Case in point^ |
|
Quoted:
Crazy nuts are crazy nuts. The worse school murder is still Bath, Michigan where the guy blew up the school house. Timonth McVeigh didn't use firearms to kill. The 9/11 Hijackers used box cutters for God's sake. You're not going to even make a speed bump in the road to crazy with a so called "high cap" ban. I keep telling people this. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think sodomizing him would interfere with his anal-virginity status.
Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the nonprofit Violence Policy Center and one of the country’s smartest gun-control activists,
If he's the brightest of the bunch, their aggregate IQ must be down in the room temperature range.... Don't laugh, it's the truth. Sugarman said that the public's general inability to distinguish between a semi-auto and full-auto firearm would guarantee them victory, and he was right about the fact that most people don't realize the only difference is in the fire control components currently installed. Keep in mind that when the VPC and their allies made a big push during the time of the first big AWB fever, the media was running video clips of full-auto weapons and calling them "assault weapons". This is a very effective, all-be-it deceitful tactic which makes the average, uninformed person automatically visualize a fully-automatic firearm when they hear those two words. This attempt was at least somewhat effective I would say, as we did get the first AWB from 1994-2004, even if deceit played a large part in it. PS, I HATE liars. |
|
Am I the only one that bothered to read THIS????:
But the truth is that the 10-round rule backfired. Manufacturers like Glock saw the rule coming and stockpiled warehouses of large-capacity magazines. Then Congress passed a law that banned only the manufacture and sale of new large magazines. Existing equipment was “grandfathered in.” A booming market in “pre-ban” magazines provided all the large-capacity gear anyone could possibly want. Indeed, the porous ban made both military-style rifles and large-capacity magazines more popular than they had been because American gun owners tend to run out and buy anything that gun-controllers try to deny them. Talk about unintended consequences. Read EVERYTHING.
|
|
Quoted:
The problem is many people will fixate on the one quote you provide and never even bother to read the article, which was not on the whole anti-gun!. Yet they will feel free to comment nonetheless. If a person tends to take a tiny snippet of an article and consider themselves educated about the whole topic, they probably approach many other more important things in life the same way. I'm not going to corral them down a chute like cattle to make sure they don't hurt themselves with their stupidity. |
|
Quoted: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-07/semi-automatic-thinking-on-gun-control Lautenberg, Sugarmann, and their allies would like to see a revival of the 10-round limit on magazine capacity that was included in the ill-fated assault weapons "ban.” Again, personally, I don’t think such a limit would seriously interfere with anyone’s Second Amendment rights. written by "Barrett, an assistant managing editor and senior writer at Bloomberg Businessweek" ... as in Bloomberg L.P. Owner: Michael Bloomberg (88%) ... as in Mayors Against Illegal Guns was founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. Bloomberg is the largest funder of the group, having contributed $3 million. [/span] This was in the local paper on the 7th: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2018868945_rifleassociation08.html NRA solicits funds after Colorado slayings"Written by Michael C. Bender, Bloomberg News," Things that make you say "Hmmmmmm"... It looks like someone is making a full-court, yellow journalism, press (pardon the pun) ... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-07/semi-automatic-thinking-on-gun-control Lautenberg, Sugarmann, and their allies would like to see a revival of the 10-round limit on magazine capacity that was included in the ill-fated assault weapons “ban.” Again, personally, I don’t think such a limit would seriously interfere with anyone’s Second Amendment rights.
Currently, pending legislative proposals to restrict magazine capacity—which are D.O.A. because they have no support from the White House and, in any event, face massive opposition in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives—have little chance of deterring a purposeful mass killer. Why? Because the measures would not ban possession of existing equipment, let alone authorize confiscation of the millions of large-capacity magazines already in private hands. Good thing, too. Can you imagine being the sheriff in a rural county given the mission of confiscating people’s pistol magazines (or, for that matter, military-style rifles)? It would lead to civil insurrection.
You cherry-pick and quote out of context the on negative quote in an ontherwise fair article. Not only fair but absolutely astonishing from an article in Bloomberg (yes, THAT Bloomberg owns it!) People really need to read the whole article. +1. |
|
the asshole in colorado could have just as easily rolled a trashcan full of explosives into the movie theatre and detonated it,fucking idiotic socialists are not able to comprehend the whole inanimate object thing.
the most dangerous weapon is the one between the ears and assholes will always find new and better ways to be assholes 
|
|
Quoted:
Crazy nuts are crazy nuts. The worse school murder is still Bath, Michigan where the guy blew up the school house. Timonth McVeigh didn't use firearms to kill. The 9/11 Hijackers used box cutters for God's sake. You're not going to even make a speed bump in the road to crazy with a so called "high cap" ban. Yea the guy in NYC with the gallon of gas takes the economy award. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Crazy nuts are crazy nuts. The worse school murder is still Bath, Michigan where the guy blew up the school house. Timonth McVeigh didn't use firearms to kill. The 9/11 Hijackers used box cutters for God's sake. You're not going to even make a speed bump in the road to crazy with a so called "high cap" ban. Yea the guy in NYC with the gallon of gas takes the economy award. It was a dollars worth of gasoline, too. |