people like this, leading the anti-gun charge is why us pro-gun people want to bang our heads against the wall


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

4/20/2007 10:13:20 AM

ok

4/20/2007 10:14:45 AM

THREAD WORTHY

4/20/2007 10:24:29 AM

yeah, a video of a congresswoman that doesn't have a clue about anything, but has introduced a bill about that which she doesn't know about, isn't thread worthy



whatever

4/20/2007 10:26:45 AM

Idiotic Congresswoman.... she helps put forth a bill that she evidently didn't read and/or understand fully. That is pretty scary.

The real question is... when did Tucker stop wearing bow-ties?

4/20/2007 11:32:14 AM

These "assault weapon" bans have got to be about the most useless feel-good bullshit I've ever seen out of Congress.

Not only did the last one never interrupt the supply of the banned items (it just raised their price), but the arms that escaped the ban were just as deadly and effective as the ones that were proscribed.

If they pass this shit again I'm going to laugh my ass off, after I buy enough normal-capacity magazines to last a lifetime, and maybe pass on to my kids.

4/20/2007 12:01:16 PM

Quote :

"If they pass this shit again I'm going to laugh my ass off, after I buy enough normal-capacity magazines to last a lifetime, and maybe pass on to my kids"

pretty much


I'm ordering $200.00 worth of high-cap drop free glock mags today

4/20/2007 12:06:40 PM

Quote :

"it's like a foreskin for a gun"

4/20/2007 12:34:29 PM

what's the point in banning barrel shrouds?

they dissipate heat, correct? so, is their line of thinking that if you have a barrel shroud you can fire more rounds because your barrel doesn't heat up really fast and somehow render the gun useless?

wouldnt you have to fire thousands of rounds to render the gun useless from heat? seems pretty worthless to me

4/20/2007 1:17:10 PM

well, you wouldn't have to fire that many to make it too hot to touch, but it's still pretty lame because long guns have a fore-end or something like one already

how are you going to ban something and not know what it is

4/20/2007 1:24:52 PM

right, obviously the barrel will be hot to the touch after a few rounds, but they can't be trying to ban barrel shrouds so you cant touch the barrel. thats why im wondering if they think somehow someone would fire enough rounds to where the gun barrel will be rendered useless by the metal melting or something, which seems highly improbable. smells like bullshit

4/20/2007 1:29:47 PM

and who shoots with one hand on the barrel anyway

4/20/2007 1:30:55 PM

haha yeah

I mean, you can warp one on a machine gun


but I've never fired enough rounds to make a semi-auto hot enough to warp, bend, glow, or anything


just hot

4/20/2007 1:31:11 PM

anti gun people crack me up, they are so ignorant and dumb

4/20/2007 1:58:55 PM

People in Congress that pass bills without actually reading them? INCONCEIVABLE!!1

4/20/2007 2:09:45 PM

thats HER BILL


and she doesn't know what the hell she is talking about

4/20/2007 2:16:16 PM

You know, as much as I loath the ignorant, meddlesome scum that promulgates gun control measures, I'd almost be willing to give them this bill, if it would make them feel like they're getting what they want and stop bothering me.

Of course, it won't, and there's no reason to think they'd be content to stop here. So I guess its time to write some letters.

4/20/2007 2:22:03 PM

vote them out

4/20/2007 2:28:11 PM

i dont feel like paying an assload for hi-cap mags and AR-15s with collapsible stocks.

4/20/2007 2:29:13 PM

I'd rather not


but if it happens again

I'll just make money

4/20/2007 2:51:44 PM

Damn, I just glanced at the Brady site for the first time in a long while, and damn, I had forgotten how annoying these motherfuckers are.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=ccwfaq

Quote :

"You don't have to be convicted of a crime to be a criminal - and not all criminals are caught. Florida does not issue licenses to those who have been convicted[emphasis Brady's] of a felony."

Wow, just wow.

Quote :

"Finally, since October 1, 1987, over 266,000 licenses have been issued (approximately 175,000 new and 80,000 renewals) in Florida. At the present time, there are approximately 145,000 valid licenses in effect. Over 35,000 licenses have not been renewed. While many of these non-renewals are probably valid (e.g. a move out of state, death), it is impossible to determine how many Floridians did not renew their licenses because they were afraid of revocation."

If leaping to conclusions were an official Olympic event, Sarah Brady would have a shot at the gold.

Quote :

"Even the most highly trained law enforcement professionals are not always able to protect themselves with firearms - a fact that was tragically emphasized with the November, 1994 shooting inside the District of Columbia Police Headquarters. Three law enforcement officers, including two FBI agents, were killed by a gunman who opened fire on them.The thought that average citizens will somehow be better able to successfully defend themselves more effectively than our nation's trained professionals is absurd."

OMG Firearm don't 100% guarantee your safety!!! Also, cops aren't always very proficient with firearms. Stop the presses.

How this invalidates the RKBA I have yet to figure out.

Quote :

"Recent research has shown that most Americans feel less safe when others in the community acquire firearms: 71% of all Americans and 85% of non-gun owners came to this conclusion. Clearly, as the authors noted, "the decision to own a firearm is more than solely a personal or a household issue - it affects others in the community as well." The decision to allow citizens to carry firearms outside of their homes would arguably have an even more detrimental effect on feelings of safety."

Because feeling safe is so much more important than being safe.

4/20/2007 2:52:38 PM

Quote :

"nation's trained professionals "

this always gets me


I shoot better and more often than most cops I know

and better and more often than some military friends I've had over the years

civilians win most of the shooting championships that are held too

CCW holders hit their target more often than LEO's also

not to mention CCW holders are less likely to commit a felony

[Edited on April 20, 2007 at 2:57 PM. Reason : but thats what they want anyway, only the govt gets a gun]

4/20/2007 2:57:06 PM

Quote :

"not to mention CCW holders are less likely to commit a felony"

Less likely to be convicted of a felony. We have no idea what kind of depraved acts these shifty CCW people are committing and getting away with.

4/20/2007 3:00:37 PM

haha good point


all I know is that I can't control myself when I have a gun in my possession!!!!!!!111


honestly I've always been MUCH LESS apt to be in an altercation when I am carrying


I'm also more inclined to help others when I am carrying... I've stopped countless times and helped people on the road because I've felt safe in my doing so

4/20/2007 3:05:03 PM

Quote :

"Less likely to be convicted of a felony. We have no idea what kind of depraved acts these shifty CCW people are committing and getting away with."

When you look at the fact that CCW holders are less likely than cops to be convicted of felonies, then you ought to get an idea of who the ultimate good guys are. I'm not saying cops aern't generally good guys though.

4/20/2007 4:01:36 PM

^I'm pretty sure he was just trolling, dude.

4/20/2007 4:27:50 PM

read the book, "More Guns Less Crime" it is a great look at the logical retardedness of the anti gun movement. how 99 percent of their arguments are based on sensationalism, bad logic and the sheer emotional gut feeling that guns are evil.

4/20/2007 5:14:42 PM

stupid bitch most likely means flash supressor

4/20/2007 6:15:10 PM

Quote :

"Idiotic Congresswoman.... she helps put forth a bill that she evidently didn't read and/or understand fully. That is pretty scary."

Then shit your pants son. They don't read the vast majority of the stuff then sign.

Quote :

"wondering if they think somehow someone would fire enough rounds to where the gun barrel will be rendered useless by the metal melting or something, which seems highly improbable"

There's a reason you think it's highly improbable. That would be because barrels aren't rendered useless from melting. Do you believe that WWI machine guns had barrel shrouds or water cooling to keep the metal from MELTING? You do realize that the barrel can warp/distend long before it would ever melt right?

Heat dissipation isn't really the point of most barrel shrouds anyways.

[Edited on April 20, 2007 at 6:29 PM. Reason : ]

4/20/2007 6:21:33 PM

"it looks scary so it must be dangerous"


lol, shrouds don't even look scary, they even put them on paintball guns too

4/20/2007 7:09:44 PM

^^yeah, i do know that jackass. my point was, do the sponsors of this bill not know that? what is their line of thinking? why ban a fucking barrel shroud? what is their reasoning? could it be that absurd?

[Edited on April 20, 2007 at 7:59 PM. Reason : ,]

4/20/2007 7:59:15 PM

why dont you ask Carolyn McCarthy about the line of thinking? Oh yeah cause she doesnt even know what one is

4/20/2007 8:01:10 PM

Quote :

"I shoot better and more often than most cops I know"

that may be true, but i shoot good as hell, i was an expert marksman in the army and was the top marksman in my police class. i also compete and have been shooting for years

4/21/2007 12:17:21 AM

Quote :

"yeah, i do know that jackass."

Try not to shit your pants. Calm down a bit.

Quote :

"could it be that absurd?"

If you think their reasoning could be THAT absurd, you're really hopeless.

First off, the congressmen don't actually write any of these bills so they put very little of their own thinking behind it. The people who wrote the bills probably wanted to ban the kind of weapons that generally come with barrel shrouds, which tend to be faster firing semi automatics. Taken alone, banning guns with "barrel shrouds" is stupid, as part of a comprehensive ban of fast firing weapons it makes a little more sense. You've got to remember they're trying to include the language in the bill to ban as many weapons as possible and to make it as broad as possible. Now I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it's not like these people think the inane shit you're trying to put in their mouths.



[Edited on April 21, 2007 at 12:29 AM. Reason : ]

4/21/2007 12:20:47 AM

Quote :

"that may be true, but i shoot good as hell, i was an expert marksman in the army and was the top marksman in my police class. i also compete and have been shooting for years"

I didn't say all

I'm not the best shot, by any means, I'm not perfect... but I know plenty of police officers that don't have the extra training you do...


or I do... and I"m a civvy

4/21/2007 1:27:52 AM

This issue is a difficult one. Do I give a shit? No, not really, because:

1. I have a gun and, regardless of the law, will always have a gun available to me in case of zombies or something similar. I've practiced with it a few times, but it's been a long time--it's also miles and miles away though where it isn't handy to practice.
2. I don't live in an impoverished neighborhood where gun violence rules all.

And I think number 2 is the key that most of the pro-gun folks don't acknowledge enough. Guns that are designed to kill humans (lots of them sometimes) pose no real threat to me so I really don't care if they're banned or not banned. But if I was a mother trying to raise my kids in a rough part of town, yeah, knowing that some punk could get a hold of one of these guns through a straw purchase would concern me.

To some of the folks in this thread, I suspect you're not the ones being terrorized with these weapons.

4/21/2007 6:01:36 AM

Basically, the anti-gun folks want to ban scary-looking guns. Just as the congresswoman couldn't define a barrel shroud, I have yet to find an anti-gun person that could define a so-called assault weapon.

4/21/2007 6:12:08 AM

^Automatic and semiautomatic weapons.

Or am I missing something?

4/21/2007 6:59:25 AM

im anti musket

4/21/2007 9:46:48 AM

What a shitty interview. The point is that they were trying to define the guns they wanted to ban and having a barrel shroud was a common feature of those guns. Nobody is implying that barrel shrouds are dangerous.

The point she was trying to make is that her bill would have banned large clips which would have reduced how many shots the VaTech killer could have fired without reloading. The more he had to reload, the more chance somebody would have had to tackle him.

You each have differing perspectives, but you should lose this holy than thou shit. She wants to save lives, you want to own cool looking guns.

4/21/2007 9:49:05 AM

From what it sounds like there was plenty of chance to jump him just on how long he was gonig.

4/21/2007 10:30:01 AM

Quote :

"Then shit your pants son. They don't read the vast majority of the stuff then sign."

it was HER BILL, though.

and it wasn't some minor backdoor provision...it was part of the crux of the legislation.

Quote :

"Automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Or am I missing something? "

missing a lot, actually, and that's pretty much the norm (for the general population, not just you).

http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html

here's more info, and a quiz to show you how asinine the law was (and similarly, how asinine the new proposed law is)

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/


and one more thing...keep in mind that "banned" didn't really mean "banned"...it mean that you could own a "banned" rifle produced after 1994...it basically just banned new production. All it really accomplished was to drive up the prices of the older stuff.

4/21/2007 1:19:20 PM

i did pretty well on the quiz for not knowing guns that well.

4/21/2007 1:47:42 PM

Quote :

"The point she was trying to make is that her bill would have banned large clips which would have reduced how many shots the VaTech killer could have fired without reloading. The more he had to reload, the more chance somebody would have had to tackle him."

Think he went through 15 clips as it was anyways.

4/21/2007 3:33:39 PM

magazines, not clips

4/21/2007 4:11:57 PM

^ Thank you! And I'm still waiting for someone to define "assault weapon."

Quote :

"^Automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Or am I missing something?"

BridgetSPK

Yes, you are missing something. Automatic weapons or "machine guns" have been banned since 1934--except under very limited circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

[Edited on April 21, 2007 at 8:15 PM. Reason : .]

4/21/2007 8:05:33 PM

Quote :

"magazines, not clips"

Yeah it annoys me when people mix them up.

4/22/2007 1:08:10 AM

Quote :

"Yeah it annoys me when people mix them up."

I find it more annoying when people get pedantic over shit like this.

Quote :

"here's more info, and a quiz to show you how asinine the law was (and similarly, how asinine the new proposed law is) "

that quiz was asinine. How am I to see whether or not the stock had been welded?

[Edited on April 22, 2007 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2007 12:37:35 PM

Quote :

"I find it more annoying when people get pedantic over shit like this."

Well when you hear people talking about banning 15 round pistol clips, and see on the news that Cho bought his clips from ebay it gets a little old. It also proves the point that people don't know what the hell they are talking about and that most news organizations don't bother to do any research.

4/22/2007 1:34:08 PM

^ haven't seen that about ebay (and I agree with the mags vs. clips thing, they are 2 different things). If he did buy them on ebay, the high capacity mag thing wouldn't matter as I don't recall ever seeing anything higher than 10 rounds mags on ebay. If I'm not mistaken, they don't allow "high-capacity" mags to be sold there.

4/22/2007 1:50:33 PM