At 10/11/17 03:27 PM, EdyKel wrote: Still wanting to continue that debate, Huh? I already pointed out how rare that shit is. People of color have a higher chance of being arrested because they fit a racial profile, than someone who doesn't follow another states laws on CC - and incidentally, that one example you used was a person of color, who didn't follow another states laws, so he was fucked coming and going.

and which example would that be, was it the Marine recruiter? because drawing a blank here.

As to your sources... You're relying on what one ATF agent thinks, who is desperately trying to get more government money for his agency, considering it's been underfunded, understaffed, and relies on antiquated technology, so he's going out of his way to kiss ass with Republicans, and the gun industry.

you mean an ATF agent who spent months with a few others testing the validity of its legality in terms of being categorized under the NFA or not? you forget under the NFA it has to be an internal with one squeeze for automatic fire, bump stocks are external where you still have to continuously squeeze, which why it was authorized to begin with. there was nothing about kissing ass when the stock manufacturer went to the ATF voluntarily just to get the federal OK, instead of just making them and selling them.

And of course there is more gun violence with handguns than "assault weapons", silly, there are more of them out there. It still doesn't change the fact that assault weapons have no real practical value other than being raped by lonely guys.

competition, hunting, recreation, and home defense.

and are the number one choice for those who want to commit mass shootings.

which are still statistically inconsequential to the overall numbers.

At 10/11/17 05:35 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 10/11/17 03:27 PM, EdyKel wrote: Still wanting to continue that debate, Huh? I already pointed out how rare that shit is. People of color have a higher chance of being arrested because they fit a racial profile, than someone who doesn't follow another states laws on CC - and incidentally, that one example you used was a person of color, who didn't follow another states laws, so he was fucked coming and going.

and which example would that be, was it the Marine recruiter? because drawing a blank here.

That would be the black guy heading to work from his state to another state, and got stopped by the police for a traffic violation or something. It was one of your first examples. It shouldn't be that hard to remember. You didn't have many, but the few you had you were trying to use an knee jerk, emotional shit - the stuff you chastised me for when I brought up the gun violence statistics. ;)

As to your sources... You're relying on what one ATF agent thinks, who is desperately trying to get more government money for his agency, considering it's been underfunded, understaffed, and relies on antiquated technology, so he's going out of his way to kiss ass with Republicans, and the gun industry.

you mean an ATF agent who spent months with a few others testing the validity of its legality in terms of being categorized under the NFA or not? you forget under the NFA it has to be an internal with one squeeze for automatic fire, bump stocks are external where you still have to continuously squeeze, which why it was authorized to begin with. there was nothing about kissing ass when the stock manufacturer went to the ATF voluntarily just to get the federal OK, instead of just making them and selling them.

It was kissing ass, that is what government bureaucrats do when they seek more funds for their department, especially as one as beleaguered as the ATF - which you have gone out of your way to trash, for everything they do, and now are praising their shit about silencers and other stuff (which is pretty funny). And they had no power to regulate bump stocks, you know that. It's up to government to to fix the loopholes, and create laws over that stuff - I even pointed this shit out to try to smother some of your hatred towards them.

And of course there is more gun violence with handguns than "assault weapons", silly, there are more of them out there. It still doesn't change the fact that assault weapons have no real practical value other than being raped by lonely guys.

competition, hunting, recreation, and home defense.

Fuck competition, no place in hunting, and overkill for self defense. You have nothing.

and are the number one choice for those who want to commit mass shootings.

which are still statistically inconsequential to the overall numbers.

Oh, I know, and it's delicious, considering we have the far right who are going bat shit insane, because now it's crazy white men who are becoming the biggest nuisance than their favorite boogeyman, Islamic extremists. Not to mention the due process laws that allows the crazies, and the religious extremists, to get hold of these types of weapons, which guarantees that theses mass shootings will only get worse, and worse (as I have predicted for the last 8 years), to the point that all the talking points by gun rights activists become meaningless, as public resettlement grows against them and all their excuses.

At 10/11/17 06:12 PM, EdyKel wrote: That would be the black guy heading to work from his state to another state, and got stopped by the police for a traffic violation or something. It was one of your first examples. It shouldn't be that hard to remember. You didn't have many, but the few you had you were trying to use an knee jerk, emotional shit - the stuff you chastised me for when I brought up the gun violence statistics. ;)

its hard to remember a call back when you and I have six loong pages worth of discussion and having to sift. also Feoric threw up the legalese for FOPA and he was most likely in violation for crossing if it wasn't properly secured. I was in the wrong.

It was kissing ass, that is what government bureaucrats do when they seek more funds for their department, especially as one as beleaguered as the ATF -

its been pretty much the same except for around 2013 when Fast and Furious happened.

which you have gone out of your way to trash, for everything they do, and now are praising their shit about silencers and other stuff (which is pretty funny). And they had no power to regulate bump stocks, you know that. It's up to government to to fix the loopholes, and create laws over that stuff - I even pointed this shit out to try to smother some of your hatred towards them.

because they knew it didn't fall under the NFA and the manufacturer could take it to court, would it be worth that? the ATF can advise congress as as witness testimony or expert defense Government agencies do have the ability to create regulations, but only to the extent authorized by a federal law.

and the enmity has been rightfully earned with the bullshit they've been pulling since the 90s.

Fuck competition, no place in hunting, and overkill for self defense. You have nothing.

there still is, .22LR for small game and .223 for medium, and 5.56mm is meant to incapacitate, which is why the military uses it. and since the stats show they are used inconsequential amount of homicides and crimes in that five figure death count, why should they have to be regulated to begin with for the actions of so few many to effect the majority besides the "there's no need for them"? when people use them for various reasons?

The USA's declaration states a bunch of bullshit about citizens having the right to Life Liberty & the pursuit of happiness.

IF , & It is a big bloody IF.
This was true. You could still have the 2nd amendment rights, WITHIN REASON.
Reason you say ....What reason ...well how about your right to own firearms cannot reasonably conflict with my right to ..oh say LIFE , you fukien morons !

There is absolutely no reason to own fully automatic, or ways to fully automatic any firearm. I should know I am a hunter. I own rifles & shotgun. When I was younger owned pistols and went to gun ranges for target practice for fun with friends..
But I am Canadian.
SO I had to get criminal background check. Which includes a mental health background check.
I had to take firearm safety course(s) .
I had to get Fire Arms Acquisition certificate.
This allows the gathering of info on what guns I own , if I am stockpiling ammo etc.

All reasonable ways to keep the guns out of criminal hands & in the hands of those who are responsible guns owners.
Most of our gun crime (most not all) is fro guns easily smuggled from the USA. because if you can stand up , place the money on the counter , many places in the USA will sell you any gun you see in the store .

That is your biggest problem.

One need do nothing more than look at countries (like mine) where owning guns is legal ....BUT YOU NEED TO PASS CHECKS to attempt to identify the crazies. You guys need a to do this first, then come up with ways to limit the military assault weapons. No one needs those for 'home & personal protection' you only need those to kill as many people in as short a time span as possible.

Remember that right to Life Liberty & pursuit of happiness , that I called Bullshit ?
How can you claim to have that right, when you have an amendment that says, you have the right to own weapons that can kill hundreds even thousands of people in a crowded situation ?

What about their rights ? why should gun ownership trump (deliberate provocation) peoples rights to a safe life pursuits

At 10/12/17 10:40 AM, morefngdbs wrote: What about their rights ? why should gun ownership trump (deliberate provocation) peoples rights to a safe life pursuits

I was gonna post pretty much this, but now I needn't bother.

Everyone can cram their patriotism and / or ammosexual mindlessness, idgaf which is masquerading as which here. All of the relatives of all of the people killed in the Vegas shooting are known now, so I have a simple task for anyone still vehemently decrying the mere mention of gun control laws:

Cut the keyboard-warrior horseshit. Find the parents of a Vegas shooting victim. Arrange to meet them in person. Explain to them face-to-face, with the same conviction you show on the internet, why your right to a gun was, and still is, more important to you than their child's right to a life.

Go on; I'll be waiting.

At 10/12/17 02:53 PM, Sheizenhammer wrote: Everyone can cram their patriotism and / or ammosexual mindlessness, idgaf which is masquerading as which here. All of the relatives of all of the people killed in the Vegas shooting are known now, so I have a simple task for anyone still vehemently decrying the mere mention of gun control laws:

Cut the keyboard-warrior horseshit. Find the parents of a Vegas shooting victim. Arrange to meet them in person. Explain to them face-to-face, with the same conviction you show on the internet, why your right to a gun was, and still is, more important to you than their child's right to a life.

Interesting thought, though I’m sure that will happen when it rains birthday cake, and that’s not getting into the logicistics of it all. It’s not like the hardcore anti-gun control people had plenty of other chances to do just that the last 10 years or so, and the excuses would probably be self-servicing, if not loaded with subtle myopia and bigotry.

I would imagine that the anti gun control crowd would point out that this is a lone gunman, a whole bunch of people in the Mandalay Bay resort could’ve stopped the shooter, and those people were completely defenseless, or just blame it on some evil group like ISIS. As I said earlier, these are total self-serving excuses that they will come up with that is selfish and myopic, but to a certain segment of the population, they’ll easily buy this and the politicans that represent them will enforce the status quo and pass the buck.

NRA opposes bump fire stocks bills in Congress

The National Rifle Association says it is opposed to new legislation in the US Senate and the House that would ban the production and sale of "bump fire stocks," a firearm accessory that allows semi-automatic weapons to fire at a more rapid pace like automatic ones.

by the sounds of the bill they also doesn't allow grandfathering or financial compensation so there's a possible 4th amendment issue which ironically they put those in the ineffective 94 AWB ban. But oh well it's going to die in committee or the floor anyways. Nice try by Feinstein for trying to profit off tragedy.

At 10/11/17 11:23 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 10/11/17 06:12 PM, EdyKel wrote: That would be the black guy heading to work from his state to another state, and got stopped by the police for a traffic violation or something. It was one of your first examples. It shouldn't be that hard to remember. You didn't have many, but the few you had you were trying to use an knee jerk, emotional shit - the stuff you chastised me for when I brought up the gun violence statistics. ;)

its hard to remember a call back when you and I have six loong pages worth of discussion and having to sift. also Feoric threw up the legalese for FOPA and he was most likely in violation for crossing if it wasn't properly secured. I was in the wrong.

I was probably in the wrong about the example, because I can't find it in your past comments, but I do remember reading the article on it... I'm getting old. I use to remember this shit better. Anyways, sorry about that.

which you have gone out of your way to trash, for everything they do, and now are praising their shit about silencers and other stuff (which is pretty funny). And they had no power to regulate bump stocks, you know that. It's up to government to to fix the loopholes, and create laws over that stuff - I even pointed this shit out to try to smother some of your hatred towards them.

because they knew it didn't fall under the NFA and the manufacturer could take it to court, would it be worth that? the ATF can advise congress as as witness testimony or expert defense Government agencies do have the ability to create regulations, but only to the extent authorized by a federal law.

and the enmity has been rightfully earned with the bullshit they've been pulling since the 90s.

If that was true, then why the other scandals? They probably could be more draconian on this shit, but I doubt they have much of a political agenda, other than surviving - besides, gun activists are their own worst enemy, and give reason alone for the need of the ATF in the country.

The ATF certainly can't stand up to the rabid gun activist crowd, or their lobbyists arm, the NRA, who needs them to cover up the silliness, and immorality, of "the people", who would, and will, sell any type of weapon, to anyone, regardless of their intent, as long as they have money, and blaming the agency for their failures, and other demonizing them to make gun owners feel like the victims of a cruel and oppressive government organization.

This is why Republicans continue to fund it (while keeping it underfunded, and on a short leash, so they will fuck up), because they recognize the importance it serves, not only to enforce gun laws, and reducing outright criminal behavior on guns to make it seem that gun abuse is not outright out of control, but also to be used by them as a convenient scapegoat to excite their gullible base that values gun rights above all else. That's the only political agenda going on here.

I mean, Fast and Furious was just used by Republicans, and the gun rights lobbyists, to go after the Obama admin, using it to imply that the liberal forces were trying to undermine guns in the country by giving them to criminals to misuse them, and using the increase gun violence to promote gun control, and to take away guns. But it wasn't any of that shit, it was just another gunwalking program that was first started under the Bush admin, but instead of going after strawbuyers, it tried to go after those heading the gun network - and this was agreed upon by many of top agencies in the country. But the ATF just screwed it up - and that is all the investigations showed, after all the Drama from Republicans, and gun activists.

The ATF is just as hated as the IRS, but both serve a critical purpose, whether some people don't want to recognize that or not. They canbring up scandals, and examples of incompetence, for both; but that can be found in all government departments. And no matter how much they whine about these agencies, it doesn't change the fact that as long as "the people" continue to do immoral things, or abuse current laws, there will always be a need for these agencies to crack down on "the people" who try and do those things... even if they are incapable of understanding, because they are self serving, and think everything is oppressive.

Fuck competition, no place in hunting, and overkill for self defense. You have nothing.

there still is, .22LR for small game and .223 for medium, and 5.56mm is meant to incapacitate, which is why the military uses it. and since the stats show they are used inconsequential amount of homicides and crimes in that five figure death count, why should they have to be regulated to begin with for the actions of so few many to effect the majority besides the "there's no need for them"? when people use them for various reasons?

No. You are a social path, you don't care about other people, and don't care if the number of instances of a few people continue to rise to abuse the shit out of something that is not needed, that has no practical value in hunting, other than overkill, and to molest for the sheer enjoyment. You know that, which is why you can't justify it, at all.

At 10/13/17 01:21 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: NRA opposes bump fire stocks bills in Congress

The National Rifle Association says it is opposed to new legislation in the US Senate and the House that would ban the production and sale of "bump fire stocks," a firearm accessory that allows semi-automatic weapons to fire at a more rapid pace like automatic ones.

by the sounds of the bill they also doesn't allow grandfathering or financial compensation so there's a possible 4th amendment issue which ironically they put those in the ineffective 94 AWB ban. But oh well it's going to die in committee or the floor anyways. Nice try by Feinstein for trying to profit off tragedy.

Are you surprised? I'm not. I knew that this would happen. There were a few poison pills intentionally added to the bill to kill it, and NRA wanted that, because now they have an excuse not to support it. They could have easily gotten rid of them, easily, if they really were serious about addressing this issue of bump stocks.

And Feinstein would not be profiting from this bill, it would be the NRA, and the gun industry, profiting off it's failure, and subsequent mass shooting that will continue to happen, and you know that. So don't try to deny it. I expect the public to eventually realize this when these mass shooting get worse and happen more often.

got so pissed off that they decided to end the committee over it, instead of trying to get rid of those

At 10/13/17 05:46 PM, EdyKel wrote: I was probably in the wrong about the example, because I can't find it in your past comments, but I do remember reading the article on it... I'm getting old. I use to remember this shit better. Anyways, sorry about that.

no prob, I was talking about the marine recruiter apparently violated FOPA but that guy probably did too, my memory also isn't as great due to all of the love taps i've taken to the head.

If that was true, then why the other scandals? They probably could be more draconian on this shit, but I doubt they have much of a political agenda, other than surviving - besides, gun activists are their own worst enemy, and give reason alone for the need of the ATF in the country.

well the ATF alone has pretty much staggered itself when it comes to its agents and their operations which have a low rate of success on scale.

The ATF certainly can't stand up to the rabid gun activist crowd, or their lobbyists arm, the NRA, who needs them to cover up the silliness, and immorality, of "the people", who would, and will, sell any type of weapon, to anyone, regardless of their intent, as long as they have money, and blaming the agency for their failures, and other demonizing them to make gun owners feel like the victims of a cruel and oppressive government organization.

This is why Republicans continue to fund it (while keeping it underfunded, and on a short leash, so they will fuck up), because they recognize the importance it serves, not only to enforce gun laws, and reducing outright criminal behavior on guns to make it seem that gun abuse is not outright out of control, but also to be used by them as a convenient scapegoat to excite their gullible base that values gun rights above all else. That's the only political agenda going on here.

well also you have to remember the ATF is a Executive Agency that can minor regulate if something is made or done within
current law but the majority of itself goes to congress. the ATF has also proved itself incompetent deserving that short leash in terms of limited budget and annual congressional oversight.

I mean, Fast and Furious was just used by Republicans, and the gun rights lobbyists, to go after the Obama admin, using it to imply that the liberal forces were trying to undermine guns in the country by giving them to criminals to misuse them, and using the increase gun violence to promote gun control, and to take away guns. But it wasn't any of that shit, it was just another gunwalking program that was first started under the Bush admin, but instead of going after strawbuyers, it tried to go after those heading the gun network - and this was agreed upon by many of top agencies in the country. But the ATF just screwed it up - and that is all the investigations showed, after all the Drama from Republicans, and gun activists.

and the ATF got a PR black eye and a budget cut, with Eric Holder being held in contempt of congress. ant eh ATF screwed it up hard with the result of the death of a us border agent and hundreds of mexican nationals.

No. You are a sociopath, you don't care about other people, and don't care if the number of instances of a few people continue to rise to abuse the shit out of something that is not needed, that has no practical value in hunting, other than overkill, and to molest for the sheer enjoyment. You know that, which is why you can't justify it, at all.

because dead people don't supersede rights and I'm under no legal or moral obligation to care about them I'm worried aout myself first I leave that job to bleeding heart altruists. and with the statistics proving otherwise you have no real reason to regulate beside "muh dead people".

Are you surprised? I'm not. I knew that this would happen. There were a few poison pills intentionally added to the bill to kill it, and NRA wanted that, because now they have an excuse not to support it. They could have easily gotten rid of them, easily, if they really were serious about addressing this issue of bump stocks.

well since Feinstein wrote the bill no I am not, no provision for grandfathering no clause for compensation, and the ban of manufacturing and commercial sale, its classic her. they'd at that point just be better off scraping it an making a new one, but there's very little time left in this legislative session.

And Feinstein would not be profiting from this bill, it would be the NRA, and the gun industry, profiting off it's failure, and subsequent mass shooting that will continue to happen, and you know that. So don't try to deny it. I expect the public to eventually realize this when these mass shooting get worse and happen more often.

oh please she tries this crap every time it happens and you know what thats called? she's cashing in on this for political gain and a vendetta because of some shit that happened to her in the 70s.

At 10/13/17 01:21 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: by the sounds of the bill they also doesn't allow grandfathering or financial compensation so there's a possible 4th amendment issue which ironically they put those in the ineffective 94 AWB ban. But oh well it's going to die in committee or the floor anyways. Nice try by Feinstein for trying to profit off tragedy.

Speaking of irony, profiting off tragedy is exactly what the NRA and gun lobby does after large-scale mass shootings.

At 10/13/17 08:14 PM, Feoric wrote: Speaking of irony, profiting off tragedy is exactly what the NRA and gun lobby does after large-scale mass shootings.

well it doesn't help when people like Feinstein feed into the cycle of crazy with putting in legislation like she just did whihc is a de facto ban, no grandfathering, no compensation and immediate halt of production and distribution of items. doesn't really help the post mass shooting feeding frenzy like when she tried after Sandy Hook.

At 10/13/17 09:57 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: well it doesn't help when people like Feinstein feed into the cycle of crazy with putting in legislation like she just did whihc is a de facto ban, no grandfathering, no compensation and immediate halt of production and distribution of items.

All I'm saying is this: it takes two to tango.

At 10/13/17 06:10 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

If that was true, then why the other scandals? They probably could be more draconian on this shit, but I doubt they have much of a political agenda, other than surviving - besides, gun activists are their own worst enemy, and give reason alone for the need of the ATF in the country.

well the ATF alone has pretty much staggered itself when it comes to its agents and their operations which have a low rate of success on scale.

Because they are viewed with suspicion and hate, because of their job in making sure that people follow the current gun regulations. A former friend, and gun shop dealer, always hated when they showed up to check the paperwork. It was an annoyance, more than anything else. He didn't respect or trust them. He considered what they did as harassment, even though he couldn't point out anything they did out of place, other than showing up and doing there job. And this leads to low morale among ATF agents who often have to work with these gun shop dealers, who don't like them.

The ATF certainly can't stand up to the rabid gun activist crowd, or their lobbyists arm, the NRA, who needs them to cover up the silliness, and immorality, of "the people", who would, and will, sell any type of weapon, to anyone, regardless of their intent, as long as they have money, and blaming the agency for their failures, and other demonizing them to make gun owners feel like the victims of a cruel and oppressive government organization.

This is why Republicans continue to fund it (while keeping it underfunded, and on a short leash, so they will fuck up), because they recognize the importance it serves, not only to enforce gun laws, and reducing outright criminal behavior on guns to make it seem that gun abuse is not outright out of control, but also to be used by them as a convenient scapegoat to excite their gullible base that values gun rights above all else. That's the only political agenda going on here.

well also you have to remember the ATF is a Executive Agency that can minor regulate if something is made or done within
current law but the majority of itself goes to congress. the ATF has also proved itself incompetent deserving that short leash in terms of limited budget and annual congressional oversight.

You will find incompetence in any government department, or anywhere in government - Just look at the Trump administration. But, considering all the other government departments, the ATF less incompetence to show than the others.

And all a limited budget does is debilitate an agency even further to guarantee it won't function properly. If you did that with defense spending we wouldn't be where we are in the world today - of course, Trump's incompetence is dragging us down, and making the world more dangerous, with less respect and more anger towards us.

I mean, Fast and Furious was just used by Republicans, and the gun rights lobbyists, to go after the Obama admin, using it to imply that the liberal forces were trying to undermine guns in the country by giving them to criminals to misuse them, and using the increase gun violence to promote gun control, and to take away guns. But it wasn't any of that shit, it was just another gunwalking program that was first started under the Bush admin, but instead of going after strawbuyers, it tried to go after those heading the gun network - and this was agreed upon by many of top agencies in the country. But the ATF just screwed it up - and that is all the investigations showed, after all the Drama from Republicans, and gun activists.

and the ATF got a PR black eye and a budget cut, with Eric Holder being held in contempt of congress. ant eh ATF screwed it up hard with the result of the death of a us border agent and hundreds of mexican nationals.

Yeah, they got a black eye because they tried to do something about the network that brought firearms into the hands of the drug cartels - with or without their help. And the whole thing about holding Holder in contempt was a partisan PR stunt by Republicans, because they couldn't pin anything on him in regards to F&F, or the rest of the White House.

And Terry, the border agent, would have been killed by another firearm, because what the ATF allowed through was just a drop in bucket in the number of firearms that routinely cross the US/Mexican border every year - not that you really give a shit about the death of some border agent, or the Mexicans that died by them (who are also just a drop in the bucket to the thousands that die annually from opportunistic Americans who sell firearms that easily make their way into Mexico from the US).

No. You are a sociopath, you don't care about other people, and don't care if the number of instances of a few people continue to rise to abuse the shit out of something that is not needed, that has no practical value in hunting, other than overkill, and to molest for the sheer enjoyment. You know that, which is why you can't justify it, at all.

because dead people don't supersede rights and I'm under no legal or moral obligation to care about them I'm worried aout myself first I leave that job to bleeding heart altruists. and with the statistics proving otherwise you have no real reason to regulate beside "muh dead people".

I don't give a shit if you don't care about others, all you do by that is hurt your own argument for guns. All that is required by the law is your right to a gun, that's it, the government has the responsibility to regulate and create laws over them, and enforce them, to make sure that people don't abuse the shit out of them. You also have the right to act like a child with a self centered view of the world, complaining and throwing a temper tantrum when your don't get your way. People also have the right to hold those liable for the misuse, and irresponsibility, accountable through politics to change laws or through legal actions - which the family of that border agent tried to sue everyone, including the gun shop.

Are you surprised? I'm not. I knew that this would happen. There were a few poison pills intentionally added to the bill to kill it, and NRA wanted that, because now they have an excuse not to support it. They could have easily gotten rid of them, easily, if they really were serious about addressing this issue of bump stocks.

well since Feinstein wrote the bill no I am not, no provision for grandfathering no clause for compensation, and the ban of manufacturing and commercial sale, its classic her. they'd at that point just be better off scraping it an making a new one, but there's very little time left in this legislative session.

And Feinstein would not be profiting from this bill, it would be the NRA, and the gun industry, profiting off it's failure, and subsequent mass shooting that will continue to happen, and you know that. So don't try to deny it. I expect the public to eventually realize this when these mass shooting get worse and happen more often.

oh please she tries this crap every time it happens and you know what thats called? she's cashing in on this for political gain and a vendetta because of some shit that happened to her in the 70s.

Again, you can use the Fiensten boogeyman as much as you want, but that won't change the fact that she has been unsuccessful on gun control for over 20 years, while the gun industry sees huge spikes in gun sales after every mass shootings, and the NRA receives millions of donations in response to them, and this money makes it's way to mostly Republicans.., So, you can keep bringing her up, but she has nothing to show for, while mass shooting has become a big business for gun rights activists, and the industry, who know control the government with an iron fist, but uses the fear of gun control for profit and political control.

At 10/13/17 06:10 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: because dead people don't supersede rights

I take it you didn't read Sheizenhammer's post?

At 10/14/17 12:22 PM, EdyKel wrote: Because they are viewed with suspicion and hate, because of their job in making sure that people follow the current gun regulations. A former friend, and gun shop dealer, always hated when they showed up to check the paperwork. It was an annoyance, more than anything else. He didn't respect or trust them. He considered what they did as harassment, even though he couldn't point out anything they did out of place, other than showing up and doing there job. And this leads to low morale among ATF agents who often have to work with these gun shop dealers, who don't like them.

those are industry inspectors pretty much glorified ledger keepers and are very different than special agents that do operations or raids, luckily there aren't enough to inspect most of the FFL's in the country

You will find incompetence in any government department, or anywhere in government - Just look at the Trump administration. But, considering all the other government departments, the ATF less incompetence to show than the others.

the ATF has been behaving itself minus a few small hiccups since F&F and the Milwaukee Shop Stings.

And all a limited budget does is debilitate an agency even further to guarantee it won't function properly. If you did that with defense spending we wouldn't be where we are in the world today - of course, Trump's incompetence is dragging us down, and making the world more dangerous, with less respect and more anger towards us.

the budget is based on performance and actual need and most law enforcement agencies and use civil forfeiture to boost their budgets.

Yeah, they got a black eye because they tried to do something about the network that brought firearms into the hands of the drug cartels - with or without their help. And the whole thing about holding Holder in contempt was a partisan PR stunt by Republicans, because they couldn't pin anything on him in regards to F&F, or the rest of the White House.

they were ordered to back down instead to interdict, and Holder probably knew something because the Wide Receiver Operation was went on for 2006 to 2008 he would have to be at least some what briefed especially if they decided to make a second incarnation of the operation from 09 to 2011, and that Obama even used Executive Privilege to cover for him only to get shot down by a judge.

And Terry, the border agent, would have been killed by another firearm, because what the ATF allowed through was just a drop in bucket in the number of firearms that routinely cross the US/Mexican border every year - not that you really give a shit about the death of some border agent, or the Mexicans that died by them (who are also just a drop in the bucket to the thousands that die annually from opportunistic Americans who sell firearms that easily make their way into Mexico from the US).

we don't if he would have eventually been shot.

All that is required by the law is your right to a gun, that's it, the government has the responsibility to regulate and create laws over them, and enforce them, to make sure that people don't abuse the shit out of them.

and the current laws on the books are fine, the statistics prove it we could even do away with some regulation than add more.

People also have the right to hold those liable for the misuse, and irresponsibility, accountable through politics to change laws or through legal actions - which the family of that border agent tried to sue everyone, including the gun shop.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that protects firearm manufacturers from "liability if their products are misused" it held up at Sandy Hook if they try Vegas they'll fail there too. its called degrees of separation. and the only way to get that changed now is a new amendment that strikes the 2nd and all SCOTUS rulings, then you have to add new federal laws along with it.

good luck getting 2/3rds of congress and 37 states to OK it.

Again, you can use the Fiensten boogeyman as much as you want, but that won't change the fact that she has been unsuccessful on gun control for over 20 years, while the gun industry sees huge spikes in gun sales after every mass shootings, and the NRA receives millions of donations in response to them, and this money makes it's way to mostly Republicans.., So, you can keep bringing her up, but she has nothing to show for, while mass shooting has become a big business for gun rights activists, and the industry, who know control the government with an iron fist, but uses the fear of gun control for profit and political control.

I was merely pointing out the spiral of it all between the parties mentioned Feinstein wants shit banned after some people die then the NRA goes on a lobby spree and people buy shit up rinse and repeat. its gotta break sometime.

At 10/14/17 12:52 PM, DamnedByFate wrote:

At 10/13/17 06:10 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: because dead people don't supersede rights

I take it you didn't read Sheizenhammer's post?

I could care less what Sheiz had to say with that emotionally charged drivel. over here we value the individual we don't do collective security like Europeans. Fun fact 20K of the 33K gun deaths annually here are suicides the other 10K are intentional homicides with the remaining being accidents or justifiable. the weapon of choice of the suicides and intentional homicides are handguns not "assault rifles" which make up a miniscule amount of the deaths, as of right now (10/14/17) there are almost 300 (rounding up) intentional deaths by mass shootings so far this year. there's no need to regulate a constitutional right.

save the false outrage and self-righteous indignation for someone who cares.

At 10/14/17 02:20 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: I could care less what Sheiz had to say with that emotionally charged drivel. over here we value the individual we don't do collective security like Europeans.

Says who?

At 10/14/17 02:20 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: I could care less what Sheiz had to say with that emotionally charged drivel.

This is exactly the sort of knee-jerk response you decry so much, just saying.

over here we value the individual we don't do collective security

*cough* Patriot Act *cough*

At 10/14/17 02:40 PM, SamPercy wrote: Yeah, save it for someone who thinks having a penchant for deregulation means you shouldn't care when people commit suicide with hand guns, use legally purchased and obtained hand guns to commit crimes or use semi-automatic rifles to commit mass crimes like this, because frankly you don't care about solving the issue, lets hope no one happens to gun you up in a crowded area.

the stats from the ATF and FBI disagree as of today there have been 300 deaths from mass shootings and less than 300 deaths from 2016 with them. and out of the 10K intentional deaths in 2016 thats insignificant to warrant regulation.

I await to hear how the world famous arse scratchers united will solve yet another issue with people dying to armed criminals with their extravagant indifference to innocent people being killed.

laws hardly effect criminals who woun't follow them anyways if they're determined. ever seen criminals break into the tores during disasters?

hell, maybe even debate the philosphical question about whether innocent people being killed is an issue in the first place, lest they have to come up with more creative solutions than apatheticism and indifference. Or blame the media? because they commit crimes don't they?

people die all the time and all sorts of different ways should we try and care about how each one dies and try to add layers of bureaucracy to it? and the only way media "commit crimes" to my knowledge is liable, copy right infringement, and saying or showing something that's a FCC no-no.

hell, even making media companies have to pay the bill to reach out to armed individuals planning to murder people is a more proactive solution than the past twenty years of fucks like you having provided nothing to the table because you can't stop being bummed by gun lobbyists backed by pro-gun billionaires or gun manufactures because you have fucking nothing else to do with your life except fear and constantly fear an impending doom on your people.

we've relaxed our laws, but guess what? violent crime and murder rates for the last 20 have dropped with an increasing population. we got the concealed carry movement off its feet in the 2000s, and now its constitutional carry.

rather than stop being such a child or fuck off back to your gun range, cunt.

aww you mad?

At 10/15/17 06:54 AM, DamnedByFate wrote: This is exactly the sort of knee-jerk response you decry so much, just saying.

then explain why the stats say otherwise? i've posted them before and with the numbers being insignificant to warrant regulation would be a legal token gesture.

*cough* Patriot Act *cough*

the Patriot Act expired bud.

At 10/14/17 04:32 PM, Feoric wrote: Says who?

before I start I should have been a little more clear I meant collective security for the public not something like the collective security of countries NATO (lol). and I'm going to keep it short because I had some sort of discussion about the Difference on how shit is done in the US and how liberal (in a sense with how much shit that is legal and we get away with) and how things are done in the UK which is ran like a nanny state and how it effects choice and rights and the mentality behind the two , but I honestly didn't think it through.

At 10/15/17 06:54 AM, DamnedByFate wrote:

*cough* Patriot Act *cough*

the Patriot Act expired bud. there is the Freedom Act but it took the bulk of physical powers and surveillance away.

Edit: ran out of time and had to make a new post.

At 10/15/17 09:56 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: then explain why the stats say otherwise? i've posted them before and with the numbers being insignificant to warrant regulation would be a legal token gesture.

The stats say that any country with a gun death rate (keeping in mind "rate" implies these numbers are already adjusted for population size) even close to the US is either an outright war zone or otherwise totally fucked. I've posted the link in this very thread. Calling those numbers insignificant shows a disconnect to reality.

At 10/15/17 10:30 AM, DamnedByFate wrote: The stats say that any country with a gun death rate (keeping in mind "rate" implies these numbers are already adjusted for population size) even close to the US is either an outright war zone or otherwise totally fucked. I've posted the link in this very thread. Calling those numbers insignificant shows a disconnect to reality.

raw numbers broken down are the only ones that matter, 33K annually 12K are Intentional homicides and that's Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.5 in 2016, that's not that bad, especially if you add more middle eastern and african countries we're way down at the bottom, but compared to some of developed countries we're up there in that category.

At 10/14/17 02:13 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 10/14/17 12:22 PM, EdyKel wrote: Because they are viewed with suspicion and hate, because of their job in making sure that people follow the current gun regulations. A former friend, and gun shop dealer, always hated when they showed up to check the paperwork. It was an annoyance, more than anything else. He didn't respect or trust them. He considered what they did as harassment, even though he couldn't point out anything they did out of place, other than showing up and doing there job. And this leads to low morale among ATF agents who often have to work with these gun shop dealers, who don't like them.

those are industry inspectors pretty much glorified ledger keepers and are very different than special agents that do operations or raids, luckily there aren't enough to inspect most of the FFL's in the country

Doesn't matter, they are pretty much hated and resented, by doing their job, by the industry and by gun activist, because they represent why "the people" can't regulate shit when money is > than morality.

You will find incompetence in any government department, or anywhere in government - Just look at the Trump administration. But, considering all the other government departments, the ATF less incompetence to show than the others.

the ATF has been behaving itself minus a few small hiccups since F&F and the Milwaukee Shop Stings.

Still, you hate them, regardless.

the budget is based on performance and actual need and most law enforcement agencies and use civil forfeiture to boost their budgets.

LOL. That's usually for personal promotion, not government agencies, which is mostly based on partisan politics, not performance. It's why we have so many lobbyists and government bureaucrats, silly.

they were ordered to back down instead to interdict, and Holder probably knew something because the Wide Receiver Operation was went on for 2006 to 2008 he would have to be at least some what briefed especially if they decided to make a second incarnation of the operation from 09 to 2011, and that Obama even used Executive Privilege to cover for him only to get shot down by a judge.

Even Darrel Isaa, who eventually lead the congressional investigation into it, was briefed on it. As I said in a previous post, many heads of various government departments wanted the ATF to go after those controlling the network of gun smuggling, not the straw buyers, so they knew the general idea of what the ATF was doing. But the ATF Fucked up, and as one agent told the incoming supervisor, Dave Voth, “You’re destined to fail.”

And yes, Holder had a general idea, but he didn't know all the details. And the reason why he was held in contempt was not anything specific in regards to F&F, it was their response to it. House Republicans could not find anything that would suggest that anyone in the White House was behind the failed program , all they could do was suggest that there was a cover up in response to it - which is what partisan politics always go after, because it's always political gold because there is no good response, because anything can be turned into a coverup. It's also interesting to note that the vote for contempt took place on the same day that the Supreme court announced their decision to save Obamacare - coincidence be damned. And since Holder was the 3rd most hated member of the Obama admin, it was easy for Republicans to do that for political points.

we don't if he would have eventually been shot.

As I said, the guns that the ATF let walk only amounted to a drop in the bucket, or just a day's worth of firearms that pass through the Mexican border on a daily basis. So, his chances of being shot by a different gun would have been the same.

and the current laws on the books are fine, the statistics prove it we could even do away with some regulation than add more.

No, they are not fine, according to you, which is what you just argued... Having no regulations, or laws with teeth, would be even better, according to your current and past arguments on gun control - any admittance that they might work would undermine your whole argument against them. And if we go by your statistics, man, you always hold the number of deaths as meaningless to you, no matter how big they are.... Yet, you just brought up Terry, the border agent, and the Mexican nationals, to back up your argument against the ATF. Never mind you don't care, or have even have a solution, for mass shootings, other than claiming the statistics, or numbers, are relatively low for the population, and that they are just used as knee jerk reaction to impose stricter regulation over a particular type of firearm, or accessory to it, you can't justify the need for.

People also have the right to hold those liable for the misuse, and irresponsibility, accountable through politics to change laws or through legal actions - which the family of that border agent tried to sue everyone, including the gun shop.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that protects firearm manufacturers from "liability if their products are misused" it held up at Sandy Hook if they try Vegas they'll fail there too. its called degrees of separation. and the only way to get that changed now is a new amendment that strikes the 2nd and all SCOTUS rulings, then you have to add new federal laws along with it.

And that was a recent act that was passed last decade by a partisan congress to appease the NRA, and can be rescinded by congress without the need for the Supreme court. After all, it's not government shutting firearm manufactures down, it's "the people". Holding companies accountable for endangering the lives of "the people" through their irresponsible actions, and forcing them to change their ways, has been the right of "the people". There is nothing in the second amendment about that.

Again, you can use the Fiensten boogeyman as much as you want, but that won't change the fact that she has been unsuccessful on gun control for over 20 years, while the gun industry sees huge spikes in gun sales after every mass shootings, and the NRA receives millions of donations in response to them, and this money makes it's way to mostly Republicans.., So, you can keep bringing her up, but she has nothing to show for, while mass shooting has become a big business for gun rights activists, and the industry, who know control the government with an iron fist, but uses the fear of gun control for profit and political control.

I was merely pointing out the spiral of it all between the parties mentioned Feinstein wants shit banned after some people die then the NRA goes on a lobby spree and people buy shit up rinse and repeat. its gotta break sometime.

We all know that Feinsten has no power, along with the anti-gun lobby, in Washington. They do not call the shots. They would accept anything form the other side, anything, because they don't have a choice. They have no bargaining chips. You might call it a cycle, but only one side is currently dominating it, and benefiting, while providing no solutions of any kind but more guns.... And that will only last so long, when they continue not to do anything, but blame the other side for things they are in full control of, as public begins to realize this as mass shooting continue to rise

At 10/15/17 11:08 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: raw numbers broken down are the only ones that matter

That makes it look even worse, which doesn't really help your argument.

At 10/15/17 12:56 PM, EdyKel wrote:

Doesn't matter, they are pretty much hated and resented, by doing their job, by the industry and by gun activist, because they represent why "the people" can't regulate shit when money is > than morality.

from what I've heard the Industry guys aren't that bad, its pretty much going over 4473s and inventory lists to make sure they match. that's also because some of us people actually get involved in the process and and join and contribute financially ro certain organizations that represents are interests.

Still, you hate them, regardless.

disapprove of would be putting it nicely.

LOL. That's usually for personal promotion, not government agencies, which is mostly based on partisan politics, not performance. It's why we have so many lobbyists and government bureaucrats, silly.

oh me!

Even Darrel Isaa, who eventually lead the congressional investigation into it, was briefed on it. As I said in a previous post, many heads of various government departments wanted the ATF to go after those controlling the network of gun smuggling, not the straw buyers, so they knew the general idea of what the ATF was doing. But the ATF Fucked up, and as one agent told the incoming supervisor, Dave Voth, “You’re destined to fail.”

and he wasn't wrong he fucked up hard. it also didn't help that the agents involved had varying positions on how to handle the firearms crossing the border. some wanted to arrest them but Voth gave the big no.

And yes, Holder had a general idea, but he didn't know all the details. And the reason why he was held in contempt was not anything specific in regards to F&F, it was their response to it. House Republicans could not find anything that would suggest that anyone in the White House was behind the failed program , all they could do was suggest that there was a cover up in response to it - which is what partisan politics always go after, because it's always political gold because there is no good response, because anything can be turned into a coverup.

then there would have been no need to use executive privilege if there was no connection or knowledge.

As I said, the guns that the ATF let walk only amounted to a drop in the bucket, or just a day's worth of firearms that pass through the Mexican border on a daily basis. So, his chances of being shot by a different gun would have been the same.

yeah that is true but at least it could have set the chances at least a little lower in terms of time and place or buy him a little more time.

No, they are not fine, according to you, which is what you just argued... Having no regulations, or laws with teeth, would be even better, according to your current and past arguments on gun control - any admittance that they might work would undermine your whole argument against them. And if we go by your statistics, man, you always hold the number of deaths as meaningless to you, no matter how big they are....

I draw the line at true fully auto and select fire and the current process for prohibited persons, the only things I want deregulated is 50 state concealed carry reciprocity and suppressors, THAT's ALL. the CDC had 12K intentional homicides in a country of 323 Million people that's not bad at all that's .000375 of the population I'd have to look but I'm pretty sure teen pregnancies could match or exceed that.

Never mind you don't care, or have even have a solution, for mass shootings, other than claiming the statistics, or numbers, are relatively low for the population, and that they are just used as knee jerk reaction to impose stricter regulation over a particular type of firearm, or accessory to it, you can't justify the need for.

because mass shootings are anomalies, people snap or go off the deep end because of shit in their lives or no rhyme or reason. and you have yet given a good reason a rational reason to impose stricter regulation over a particular type of firearm, or accessory. AR-15s and even AK-47s (use a longer barrel please) are considered common use which are under the Miller Ruling which allow the use of weapons of the time. ( I think)

And that was a recent act that was passed last decade by a partisan congress to appease the NRA, and can be rescinded by congress without the need for the Supreme court. After all, it's not government shutting firearm manufactures down, it's "the people". Holding companies accountable for endangering the lives of "the people" through their irresponsible actions, and forcing them to change their ways, has been the right of "the people". There is nothing in the second amendment about that.

and why should gun manufacturers be held liable? the legal degrees of separation are long and covered by background checks and ATF paperwork that waive any sort of liability of the manufacturer unless it was a technical flaw in the product. charging firearm manufacturers for mass shootings is like suing a car manufacturer for a drunk driver, or Mcdonalds because some asshole ate to much of it and had a heart attack.

We all know that Feinsten has no power, along with the anti-gun lobby, in Washington. They do not call the shots. They would accept anything form the other side, anything, because they don't have a choice. They have no bargaining chips. You might call it a cycle, but only one side is currently dominating it, and benefiting, while providing no solutions of any kind but more guns.... And that will only last so long, when they continue not to do anything, but blame the other side for things they are in full control of, as public begins to realize this as mass shooting continue to rise

they have the power to block things in the Senate i'll concede that with the party margin there so slim. but your right they don't have SCOTUS, they don't have Congress and they don't have the White House. which is nice for a change.

At 10/15/17 01:21 PM, DamnedByFate wrote: That makes it look even worse, which doesn't really help your argument.

from where they're at and what weapons that have been used it does. three words: Blue States and Handguns.

At 10/15/17 02:39 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: from where they're at and what weapons that have been used it does. three words: Blue States and Handguns.

This is all irrelevant to the overall point, which is this: You refuse to see the problem in people being killed in staggeringly large numbers.

At 10/15/17 02:37 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 10/15/17 12:56 PM, EdyKel wrote:

Still, you hate them, regardless.

disapprove of would be putting it nicely.

Again, you hate them, and you have scapegoated them to draw attention away from the fact that there are a lot of immoral, lawbreaking, people who deal in guns. You make the agency sound worse than them. And that is what your argument against them comes down to.

LOL. That's usually for personal promotion, not government agencies, which is mostly based on partisan politics, not performance. It's why we have so many lobbyists and government bureaucrats, silly.

oh me!

Yup, and the NRA is currently winning their budget battle.

and he wasn't wrong he fucked up hard. it also didn't help that the agents involved had varying positions on how to handle the firearms crossing the border. some wanted to arrest them but Voth gave the big no.

As the guy said, “You’re destined to fail.”, given how ATF has been underfunded, understaffed, for decades. As the above article points out: "If you can strangle the chief agency charged with carrying out gun laws, it’s the equivalent of not having those laws in place." Even if they did have good ideas, with some really good leaders, they would still have a high probability of failing, because that is what the current system wants, a system controlled by gun activists. They are also up against state bureaucracies as well, which is what what snagged up F&F.

Due process was already working against them, as well as gun seizure, and there is no law in the US over gun trafficking, especially in a state with one of the weakest gun control regulations in the country, with hundreds of gun dealers within a 200 mile radius of the US Mexican border. And there was nothing to indicate that the ATF allowed guns to walk, they just couldn't do anything about them. According to one article:

"Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn."

then there would have been no need to use executive privilege if there was no connection or knowledge.

You seem to think that this is something new, it isn't. It's become a popular tactic by a partisan party in power to get information on their opponents, their tactics or political strategy, or anything that would embarrass them, and using some excuse or a scandal to get it - relevance to the case be damned. It's also meant to make their opponents look bad if they refuse to turn over such information, as the party in power controls the talking points. I mean, you don't even know what it is that the GOP wanted, or how it ties to the investigation that had nothing to do with the actual details of the F&F program - perhaps Holder should have done a Bush, and claimed they lost millions of e-mails.

The whole contempt thing was also thrown out of court, with the judge shaking her head, and calling what the House did as "entirely unnecessary". And the Obama admin did, eventually, released most of them, with nothing nefarious in them.

I draw the line at true fully auto and select fire and the current process for prohibited persons, the only things I want deregulated is 50 state concealed carry reciprocity and suppressors, THAT's ALL. the CDC had 12K intentional homicides in a country of 323 Million people that's not bad at all that's .000375 of the population I'd have to look but I'm pretty sure teen pregnancies could match or exceed that.

This is the first time you have actually drawn a line. Every time we have gotten into a discussion about this you immediately rail against gun regulation, and talk about how ineffective they are, even though the very line you support shows that they do work. It's only recently that the loophole of assault rifles ,bump stocks, and high capacity clips, have gotten around that, due to easing of regulations, and continuously failing to address those accessories that turn a firearm into a fully auto.

And your continuously argument of death numbers being insignificant, while ignoring the total gun violence numbers (non-suicides), only works against your argument for the need of firearms for defense.

because mass shootings are anomalies, people snap or go off the deep end because of shit in their lives or no rhyme or reason. and you have yet given a good reason a rational reason to impose stricter regulation over a particular type of firearm, or accessory. AR-15s and even AK-47s (use a longer barrel please) are considered common use which are under the Miller Ruling which allow the use of weapons of the time. ( I think)

An anomaly that has become more and more deadlier, on a more frequent basis, which indicates it will continue to get worse, and happen more often. And as I have said, you have failed to show a reason not to impose stricter regulations over a type of firearm, and accessories, that is almost as bad a a fully auto, and has no practical purpose other than to fuck around with, or kill a great number of people quickly with. And the Miller ruling is something that is quite obscure, with both sides of the debate claiming a win over it, while often being interpreted differently. It also didn't deny regulations, or bans, of certain types of firearms.

and why should gun manufacturers be held liable? the legal degrees of separation are long and covered by background checks and ATF paperwork that waive any sort of liability of the manufacturer unless it was a technical flaw in the product. charging firearm manufacturers for mass shootings is like suing a car manufacturer for a drunk driver, or Mcdonalds because some asshole ate to much of it and had a heart attack.

Why is any business held liable when it endangers the public in some form? Unlike car manufactures, the gun is meant to kill. That is it's main purpose. It's only recent that gun rights activist have tried to argue otherwise, that it is a deterrent, or or for target shooting, ignoring the the fact that the majority of gun homicides are done in domestic abuse cases, or gang violence (gangs killing each other), and more recently mass shootings that now plague us by crazy white guys, or Muslim extremists.

When Car manufactures get sued, or see something that they may be liable for, they try to fix the problem. There is no such
incentive for gun manufactures, who continue to find loopholes, or test the bounds of current regulations, to make their firearms more deadly - which is why we now argue over assault weapons and certain accessories.

they have the power to block things in the Senate i'll concede that with the party margin there so slim. but your right they don't have SCOTUS, they don't have Congress and they don't have the White House. which is nice for a change.

Block, but no power to create. Even if they got control of congress, and the presidency, or even the Supreme court, they would be thwarted by blue dogs in their party to enact anything of significance. But, changing attitude by the public, who may eventually come to a breaking point, might push even the most gun moderate, or gun supporter, to back up gun regulations with some teeth.