Only in your little world. ;)

my world = universe + fanboys;
Make AmeriCa great again.

Just hit my ignore list......

Siran

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

That's one smart penguin.

That's one smart penguin.

Ameяiça's greatest strength is its diversity. Ask Darwin about that.

So now it turns out that a court martial doesn't get entered into NCIC as per standing orders. How soon before the court martial for that?

So now it turns out that a court martial doesn't get entered into NCIC as per standing orders. How soon before the court martial for that?

Who cares? Clearly this country prefers business as usual.

---

So now it turns out that a court martial doesn't get entered into NCIC as per standing orders. How soon before the court martial for that?

Who cares? Clearly this country prefers business as usual.

You can be sure someone with a gold star on their collar cares and someone with a gold bar on theirs will care.

Yep, those angry white people over there won't give up their semi-auto pistols or their assault rifles. Thankfully neither of them are allowed over here to the general public.

Isn't the good old bolt action hunting rifle good enough these days to put a bit of food on the table or to get rid of feral animals? Or are angry white people over there just interested in killing other people these days?

No cheers here as usual.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/360654-senators-introduce-bipartisan-gun-background-check-bill

Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced legislation on Thursday that would require states and agencies to produce plans for sending records to the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) that would show if an individual is prohibited from buying a gun and verifying that the information is accurate.

The measure would also try to incentivize agencies and states to provide information by blocking bonus pay for political appointees in agencies that fail to upload records to the background check system and rewarding states that follow their implementation plans.

Typical owner of a typical Second Amendment man cave.

Make sure you have the right armament when the invaders come calling. You can't be over prepared.

Well. At very least he managed to shoot one deer.
But isn't that an overkill?

Father of 6-year-old Sandy Hook victim hopes to bring unique lawsuit against AR-15 makers

He and family members of other victims have filed a unique lawsuit against the gun manufacturers of the AR-15, the powerful semi-automatic assault rifle that allowed Lanza to carry out his rampage so quickly and with such lethal capability. They claim the manufacturers, Remington Arms and Bushmaster Firearms, bear responsibility for the massacre.
...
Thanks to Congress, gun manufacturers have largely been absolved from any responsibility. After intense lobbying from the National Rifle Association, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005. Under the law, manufacturers cannot be held accountable when one of their weapons is used in a crime or mass shooting. However, the law allows for a sliver of wiggle room if the plaintiffs can prove “negligent entrustment.” In this case, the legal term means proving the manufacturers were reckless in that they knew they were selling deadly weapons and looking for violent young men as customers. The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Joshua Koskoff, believes they can prove this.

He said Remington and Bushmaster have described the gun as a modern sporting rifle. But in their marketing, they showcase it as a militarized weapon. The gun appears in violent first-person shooter video games and is advertised in a catalog as capable of making the “forces of opposition bow down,” according to Koskoff. The lawyer scoffed at the manufacturers’ classification of the weapon as a sporting rifle when it was meant for trained military personnel, not civilians. “This has military roots going back to Vietnam,” Koskoff said of the gun. “They were trying to design the perfect killing machine for the world’s greatest military. It checked all the boxes.” Moreover, Koskoff said, public filings by Remington show that it has been eager to tap into a younger demographic. The marketing, and the customer base it targets, lead to high-risk users like Lanza, Koskoff said.

---

Father of 6-year-old Sandy Hook victim hopes to bring unique lawsuit against AR-15 makers

[ -snipped BS- ]

Ok, this is totally ridiculous. Did the AR-15 manufacturer pay the guy or in any way whatsoever goad him into going on the rampage? No!!! They are not responsible for what a user of their product does. Think about it. It is totally illogical!!!

This fraking country is just plain sue happy and will look for any excuse to sue someone in the hopes of landing a windfall fortune.

Siran

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

Do you think fully automatic firearms should be legal then? How about personal nuclear weapons? After all, they are both armaments and Second Amendment manufacturers not responsible yadda. If you would restrict them, why the arbitrary distinction?

I look at this much like the "free speech" issue. Free speech means only that the government won't prosecute someone for saying something controversial. It doesn't absolve one of responsibility or ramifications of this speech, including firing, termination of online services, or just being despised.

Likewise, the government (unfortunately?) won't prosecute manufacturers from making or selling weapons of war to civilians. They made a device with the designed purpose of killing as many human beings in as short of a time as the law could possibly allow; it has no other uses and is far too powerful for self-defense or hunting. Why should they then be absolved of all responsibility? The device was being used for the purpose it was designed for. The fact that the targets were innocent six-year-old schoolchildren rather than a fantasy horde of post-apocalyptic invaders was not considered.

---

Do you think fully automatic firearms should be legal then? How about personal nuclear weapons? After all, they are both armaments and Second Amendment manufacturers not responsible yadda. If you would restrict them, why the arbitrary distinction?

I look at this much like the "free speech" issue. Free speech means only that the government won't prosecute someone for saying something controversial. It doesn't absolve one of responsibility or ramifications of this speech, including firing, termination of online services, or just being despised.

Likewise, the government (unfortunately?) won't prosecute manufacturers from making or selling weapons of war to civilians. They made a device with the designed purpose of killing as many human beings in as short of a time as the law could possibly allow; it has no other uses and is far too powerful for self-defense or hunting. Why should they then be absolved of all responsibility? The device was being used for the purpose it was designed for. The fact that the targets were innocent six-year-old schoolchildren rather than a fantasy horde of post-apocalyptic invaders was not considered.

The article stated "semi-automatic AR-15", not fully automatic. Semi-autos are legal to own.

You liberals really like to go to the EXTREME don't you? "personal nuclear weapons"? Give me a break!

What the heck are "Second Amendment manufacturers" anyway? The 2nd Amendment is a right given to ALL U.S. citizens as long as they can legally own a gun. And NO! The manufacturers are NOT responsible for some idiot going on a rampage "just because the idiot used one of their guns". The idiots are the ones responsible and if they can be taken without killing them the more the merrier. They should suffer the same fate as Manson did.

Name one Military organization that uses ONLY semi-auto long guns. None. They have weapons that can be fired either semi-auto mode or auto mode, but not solely semi-auto. Manufacturers of automatic weapons do not sell to individual citizens.

And just one more thing. Idiots that cannot legally own a gun can get them if they have the means and the money. Which means, the gun is illegal.

Guns don't kill people. The idiot behind the gun, pulling the trigger is the killer and needs to be held accountable, NOT the maker of the gun they used.

Siran
[edit] I forgot to answer your first question. No, I do not believe that individual citizens should be allowed to own automatic long guns. Auto-weapons should not be legal. [/edit]

Siran

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

You liberals really like to go to the EXTREME don't you?

Please don't pin labels like this on me... I don't fit into any political pigeonhole and I prefer it that way. The term is also never used as anything but an insult these days anyways. Thank you.

The fact that you support nuclear arms control for personal use shows that you do support arms control... now it's just a matter of degree. I also note that you didn't address whether you agree that fully-automatic firearms should be legal. Do you? (edit: I see you edited in that you do support restriction for automatic firearms.)

In this case, why? Doesn't this fit into your argument of personal responsibility and that the manufacturer isn't responsible? I don't see much of a distinction when a semi-automatic firearm can still have a similar magazine capacity and can fire two or more rounds per second manually... each one of those can result in a dead person, and with fully-automatics it's not even possible to aim the thing fast enough to up this much more.

I support an individual's right to self-defense and sport firearms. If I had my way, anything that allowed someone to fire as fast as they could pull the trigger would be illegal for civilian ownership. Single-action revolvers, bolt-action rifles, pump or double-barrel shotguns would be legal and of course all single-shot variants. Anything more is a mass-murder tool. These weapons allow one to defend onself from attacker(s) who are in one's face or charging, but... a critical difference, make it hard to hit someone running away ie who is not a threat, which is then not a self-defense situation. Do we need another reminder that when the Second Amendment was written, all firearms were single-shot and took many seconds to reload even for an expert?

Hope this clarifies.

---

Do you think fully automatic firearms should be legal then? How about personal nuclear weapons? After all, they are both armaments and Second Amendment manufacturers not responsible yadda. If you would restrict them, why the arbitrary distinction?

They both are legal. For a very clean record and few hundred bucks in fees, you too can become a firearms dealer.

Siran, car manufacturers are required to have certain safety things like air bags, seat belts etc. Toy companies are regulated for safety as are most all other manufacturers. The firearms industry not so much. The results speak for themself.

---

You liberals really like to go to the EXTREME don't you?

Please don't pin labels like this on me... I don't fit into any political pigeonhole and I prefer it that way. The term is also never used as anything but an insult these days anyways. Thank you.

-[ snip ]-

In this case, why? Doesn't this fit into your argument of personal responsibility and that the manufacturer isn't responsible? I don't see much of a distinction when a semi-automatic firearm can still have a similar magazine capacity and can fire two or more rounds per second manually... each one of those can result in a dead person, and with fully-automatics it's not even possible to aim the thing fast enough to up this much more.

-[ snip ]-
Hope this clarifies.

First, my apologies for calling you liberal. I just noticed that you are in Canada. Nice place, vacationed in Ontario when I was a teen back in the 60s. Drove the AlCan highway more times than I can remember. Anyway...

You may have missed the following statement I made:

And just one more thing. Idiots that cannot legally own a gun can get them if they have the means and the money. Which means, the gun is illegal.

Any U.S. citizen that gets their hands on a automatic long gun is in violation of federal and/or state law. The gun is illegal. A person using said long gun for a nefarious purpose is responsible for their actions, NOT the manufacturer. The manufacturer did NOT twist that person's arm and tell them to go kill someone. That would be like someone suing McDonald's because they are fat (which I believe has happened). We cannot have the son of a suicide bomber being sued for what his father did.

Siran

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

Any U.S. citizen that gets their hands on a automatic long gun is in violation of federal and/or state law. The gun is illegal. A person using said long gun for a nefarious purpose is responsible for their actions, NOT the manufacturer. The manufacturer did NOT twist that person's arm and tell them to go kill someone. That would be like someone suing McDonald's because they are fat (which I believe has happened). We cannot have the son of a suicide bomber being sued for what his father did.

I'll reiterate my point that the banning of automatic long guns is just as much of a restriction as the banning of semi-automatic assault rifles. If the first is agreeable because they are too dangerous/powerful/potential of misuse, why is there an arbitrary disagreement with the second? Either the Second Amendment is being followed to the letter, or it is not.

If automatics were legal, and someone used one to massacre a school full of children and teachers, the same arguments would still apply: the murderer was responsible for their own actions. No one twisted their arm and told them to do this. The manufacturers were blameless.

---

Any U.S. citizen that gets their hands on a automatic long gun is in violation of federal and/or state law.

They are not banned. Stop spreading that lie.
Every weapon in this video is legally owned by a person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCppmoZiXUY