Democrats revealing the Assault Weapons Ban today.

chris7375 · Jan 24, 2013

It would seem that the Dems are on their merry way to having an Assault weapons proposal today for all of us to see. It looks like they are going to try and garner support for the bill and try and get it passed in the House. Though Reid is skeptical it will pass.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...-senators-set-to-propose-assault-weapons-ban/

clax · Jan 24, 2013

The idea that a 223 rifle is more "assualty" is rediculous. this is just the dictator in cheif's effort to open the door on gun bans.

I will keep min and they can pry it from my cold dead hand.

chris7375 · Jan 24, 2013

clax said:
The idea that a 223 rifle is more "assualty" is rediculous. this is just the dictator in cheif's effort to open the door on gun bans.

I will keep min and they can pry it from my cold dead hand.

I read an article the other day on how this was perfect timing all the events that happened. Certain government officials want to do away with the second amendment and the time for everything put their agenda on the fast track.

Feinstein's ban also includes certain shotguns, handguns does not seem to have a definition to it so to me it looks like all handguns. Most rifles and I am not sure what else. The only thing she forgot was the BB Gun.

clax · Jan 24, 2013

chris7375 said:
I read an article the other day on how this was perfect timing all the events that happened. Certain government officials want to do away with the second amendment and the time for everything put their agenda on the fast track.

Feinstein's ban also includes certain shotguns, handguns does not seem to have a definition to it so to me it looks like all handguns. Most rifles and I am not sure what else. The only thing she forgot was the BB Gun.

they want to be emperors in order to do so they need to disarm the united states.

chris7375 · Jan 24, 2013

clax said:
they want to be emperors in order to do so they need to disarm the united states.

With a large number of Americans blindly following along praising this as a cure all.

clax · Jan 24, 2013

chris7375 said:
With a large number of Americans blindly following along praising this as a cure all.

Well that is the product of mind numbed drones.

they are going to be silent when they come for the gun owners because they are not gun owners, and so on until they come for the drones and nobody is left to fight for them.

such good little sheeple

clax · Jan 24, 2013

its sad that they march to their own demise so willingly, it makes me wonder if we deserve the country we live in. I once tried to show some people that they are in control of their own rights but they deeply insulted me instead of seeing. I am saddened by that.

chris7375 · Jan 24, 2013

clax said:
its sad that they march to their own demise so willingly, it makes me wonder if we deserve the country we live in. I once tried to show some people that they are in control of their own rights but they deeply insulted me instead of seeing. I am saddened by that.

They don't want to upset their lives. Though will be the first to cry when something they could have prevented intrudes upon their lives.

clax · Jan 24, 2013

chris7375 said:
They don't want to upset their lives. Though will be the first to cry when something they could have prevented intrudes upon their lives.

they want to do something about the sandy hook shooting, their heart is in the right place but it has clouded their judgement.

yes it was a tragedy but a far greater tragedy is 300,000,000 people loosing liberty because people bury their heads in the sand and refuse to listen to reason.

myp · Jan 24, 2013

clax said:
they want to do something about the sandy hook shooting, their heart is in the right place but it has clouded their judgement.

yes it was a tragedy but a far greater tragedy is 300,000,000 people loosing liberty because people bury their heads in the sand and refuse to listen to reason.

What reason? Where is the data? We don't have great data partly because of certain existing laws and special interests. So making an argument out of reason is difficult and we are often left to opinion.

As for moving on gun action now- the Overton window is bigger, no surprise there.

chris7375 · Jan 24, 2013

myp said:
What reason? Where is the data? We don't have great data partly because of certain existing laws and special interests. So making an argument out of reason is difficult and we are often left to opinion.

As for moving on gun action now- the Overton window is bigger, no surprise there.

Would history not be a good look for data? What happened when the government banned liquor. The sellers went underground. They made a profit and started a criminal empire that lasted many years.

History repeats itself just in different ways. Statistics are fine and dandy though in reality most data is biased to one side or another on an issue.

If anything should be an indicator as to what happens when you ban stuff it should be history.

myp · Jan 24, 2013

chris7375 said:
Would history not be a good look for data? What happened when the government banned liquor. The sellers went underground. They made a profit and started a criminal empire that lasted many years.

History repeats itself just in different ways. Statistics are fine and dandy though in reality most data is biased to one side or another on an issue.

If anything should be an indicator as to what happens when you ban stuff it should be history.

People are biased, real data never is. Numbers don't lie

(disclaimer: interpreters can)

So using the alcohol argument are you for legalization of literally everything or do you think some things should be banned or regulated? Should all drugs be legal and OTC, all quack remedies legal, all weapons including bombs legal? A ban on alcohol won't be completely comparable to a ban on something else. I think if AK-47s, etc. are banned, you aren't going to have a huge black market that produces them. For one it is harder to make an AK than alcohol and the market is much smaller.

chris7375 · Jan 24, 2013

myp said:
People are biased, real data never is. Numbers don't lie (disclaimer: interpreters can)

So using the alcohol argument are you for legalization of literally everything or do you think some things should be banned or regulated? Should all drugs be legal and OTC, all quack remedies legal, all weapons including bombs legal? A ban on alcohol won't be completely comparable to a ban on something else. I think if AK-47s, etc. are banned, you aren't going to have a huge black market that produces them. For one it is harder to make an AK than alcohol and the market is much smaller.

I disagree with you here. There was a study done around 6 years ago or so I am can't remember. It was on the lending practices of financial institutions and if there was racism involved in the giving of loans.

The numbers came out and low and behold the numbers point that white got more loans then Blacks yet other factors were withheld from what the public got to view.

Such as other races involved in the study. Credit score of those that participated in the study. All that was conveniently left out of what was released to the public.

Gun studies also are well known for this if the study is done by a left leaning institution it will show number democrats want the public to see. Same with the right. So I find charts and graph's biased to a certain side.

Number can lie it is quite easy to fudge a number enough to push the crowd your direction. By the time they get found out it is to late.

myp · Jan 24, 2013

chris7375 said:
Such as other races involved in the study. Credit score of those that participated in the study. All that was conveniently left out of what was released to the public.

I gave a disclaimer, didn't I- interpretations can tell a false story either intentionally or by accident. The numbers never lie though- they aren't sentient

It is about getting good data and good methodology. Unfortunately, partly due to special interests, we don't have that for gun crimes.

HistorianOfGenocide · Jan 24, 2013

Almost all if not all dictatorships ban every kind of firearm which causes the people to be defenseless to the government. North Korea is a perfect example of this. Anyone who opposes their government is killed or put in a concentration camp.

chris7375 · Jan 25, 2013

myp said:
I gave a disclaimer, didn't I- interpretations can tell a false story either intentionally or by accident. The numbers never lie though- they aren't sentient It is about getting good data and good methodology. Unfortunately, partly due to special interests, we don't have that for gun crimes.

There are small studies out for Guns though from what I seen they reflect the side they are made for. No you are correct I will agree the numbers don't lie. It is the parties use of those number and omitting certain key facts to better bolster their cause.

myp · Jan 25, 2013

chris7375 said:
There are small studies out for Guns though from what I seen they reflect the side they are made for.

Exactly. The data isn't there. Take your opinion on Obama's gun measures, but his move to lift the ban on Federal funding for gun violence research should be applauded by both sides.

chris7375 · Jan 25, 2013

myp said:
Exactly. The data isn't there. Take your opinion on Obama's gun measures, but his move to lift the ban on Federal funding for gun violence research should be applauded by both sides.

Yeah I do think that is a great thing. Though I am worried it is going to be fitted to the party line. As the Dems did with the Loan study. What they study says and what we get to see are two different things.

myp · Jan 25, 2013

chris7375 said:
Yeah I do think that is a great thing. Though I am worried it is going to be fitted to the party line. As the Dems did with the Loan study. What they study says and what we get to see are two different things.

This is Federal funding for actual researchers- comparable to basic research funding by the NIH from what I understand (although I could be wrong). It isn't about iffy political "think tanks" cherry-picking data (although some could possibly get through too, I don't know the way that the money is delegated for this once it is available).

chris7375 · Jan 25, 2013

myp said:
This is Federal funding for actual researchers- comparable to basic research funding by the NIH from what I understand (although I could be wrong). It isn't about iffy political "think tanks" cherry-picking data (although some could possibly get through too, I don't know the way that the money is delegated for this once it is available).

I am not worried about the researcher cherry picking data. Researchers did not cherry pick data when the did the loan approval studies. It was the powers that be that decided what they wanted the public to see. I am not worried about the researchers in the least. I am worried what they will actually let us see.

Democrats revealing the Assault Weapons Ban today.

Similar threads