Gun threads

[signage]

We are for the most part a society of SHEEP!

 

[Gene@mpls]

A "clip" was the designation for the device used to hold several rounds together to load into a firearm that did not have a removable magazine. Example, the German C96 (Broomhandle).

I own C96 carbine- I believe it is called a stripper clip.

 

[cajun312]

This hits the nail on the head. Strange how it is so easily overlooked... Or is it purposely left out of the debate by the ones who actually dictate the direction of the debate... For the most part everything said in this thread is regurgitation from what has been seen/read/heard from opposing but partisan outlets. I would bet that the pharmaceutical industry lines more pockets on both sides of the fence then anti/pro gun advocates. As for guns being the missing piece in the "monster" recipe, pretty sure guns have been around and in large use for much longer than these drugs. Seems like these drugs have been misused as a tool for parenting starting about the same time as "discipline" was outlawed, the church and its morals were thrown out of society, and media/entertainment dicarded decency. I would say the problem on hand has much more to do with how our society has taken personal responsibility away from its citizens and replaced it with politcal correctness, instant gratification, and victimization.



Side note, I think this whole debate has been escelated by the previously mentioned dictators of debate, to serve as a distraction from major problems that our country is actually facing today... fiscal cliff...

 

[tsgstl]

I have seen many discussions about mental illness. Frankly both sides seem more logical and willing to reason. On the other hand you have the gun debate with a vocal minority afraid of the government and any outsiders, so they don't want to reason with anything causing them to lose the arsenal stockpile of weaponry for their big uprising.

que sera sera

 

[OldPaint]

a CLIP HOLDS BULLETS, A MAGAZINE HOLDS BULLETS........30.06 has a clip magazine. yuou load the clip with bullets, and INSERT INTO THE GUN, now it becomes the guns MAGAZINE. a 35 remington pump has A TUBE MAGAZINE you load bullets into. my .22 mag lever action had a TUBE MAGAZINE.......you inserted the bullets into.
AND THEN THIS:An assault rifle is any firearm that has one particular feature, a select fire switch. typically this switches the firearm from single shot to full automatic (like a machine gun) and sometime there is also a setting for three round bursts.
this function was removed from the CIVILIAN SOLD VERSION.... so it could be sold as a sports gun.
and iam sure any one familiar with an ar-15, looking at one that is FULLY AUTO, and one that is semi auto.........really requires a lot of scrutiny.
to refresh your memory on how much carnage a fully auto weapon can do......these guys weapon of choice was AK-47 FULL AUTOS!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsOWSDtxERU

 

[cajun312]

Very interesting opinion on gun control from Pravda of all places.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

A small part of it here


For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, :Welcome, swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or "talking to them", it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

 

[OldPaint]

i am impressed someone else read PRAVDA. i kep telling those who think their political view is the only way...........TO GO READ PRAVDA, they have no bias to any political party.
on the same page in PRAVDA there was this:
A survey found that 50 percent of Americans say gun laws should be made more strict than they are now, compared to 43 percent who said that they should remain the same (29 percent) or be made less strict (14 percent). The poll also found support for banning semi-automatic weapons (51 percent to 33 percent) as well as magazine clips holding more than 10 rounds (54 percent to 32 percent).
NOTE: magazine clips...........in the same context as the manufacture used it)))))

Translated from the Portuguese version by:

Lisa Karpova

Pravda.Ru

 

[WildWestDesigns]

NOTE: magazine clips...........in the same context as the manufacture used it)))))

Like I said before Joe, that may still not be the correct usage. I have known software developers to use terms interchangeably that were not and these were niche software developers that should have known better. Even though one might like to think that because a manufacture uses a term a certain way that it's correct, doesn't mean that it's a sufficient reason.

I prefer rifles, shotguns, and revolvers, so the more "mechanical" guns are not my forte, so I'm not saying you are correct or not in this instance, but just be careful though in your assumption that because the manufacture uses that term that it is indeed the correct term. Mistakes like that are made all the time.

 

[bob]

i am impressed someone else read PRAVDA. i kep telling those who think their political view is the only way...........TO GO READ PRAVDA, they have no bias to any political party.
on the same page in PRAVDA there was this:
A survey found that 50 percent of Americans say gun laws should be made more strict than they are now, compared to 43 percent who said that they should remain the same (29 percent) or be made less strict (14 percent). The poll also found support for banning semi-automatic weapons (51 percent to 33 percent) as well as magazine clips holding more than 10 rounds (54 percent to 32 percent).
NOTE: magazine clips...........in the same context as the manufacture used it)))))...

And yet another survey, thankfully not from Pravda, states that at least 60% of Americans are idiots, unable to find their asse$ with both hands.

What any survey and/or poll might show depends very much on just how the questions are posed. Any resemblance to any survey and/or poll to reality is coincidental at best and most likely contrived.

Here's the thing...If someone would come to me and demonstrate with absolute certainty that all war, poverty, famine, pestilence, disease; every sort of unpleasantness, could be completely wiped out and all it would take would be for me to accept a minor encroachment on one of my rights, say limiting detachable magazines to 10 rounds or less, I would just naturally tell them to find another way. Go pound sand. My rights are mine and they are untouchable. 'Unalienable' is the term used in the founding documents.

You always cede your rights for what seems like a good reason or situation but when the situation has passed and the good reason is gone away you never get your rights back.

Never cede ANY right you have, never allow ANY encroachment no matter how trivial for ANY reason whatsoever. Never. Ever. Once you swap your rights for what seems like a bit of safety or for whatever good reason at the time, they are gone forever.

 

[OldPaint]

WWW.........i dont care how YOU or anyone want to dissect a word, to any meaning of what it is colloquially, it has ment the same thing since since the begining of the gun.
your doing this semantic argument when it really has no end. tomato= tomaaaato.
BOB AND I AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!!!!
And yet another survey, thankfully not from Pravda, states that at least 60% of Americans are idiots, unable to find their asse$ with both hands.
and bob and i are in the other 40%))))))))))

 

[WildWestDesigns]

WWW.........i dont care how YOU or anyone want to dissect a word, to any meaning of what it is colloquially, it has ment the same thing since since the begining of the gun.
your doing this semantic argument when it really has no end. tomato= tomaaaato.

Oh Joe, Joe, Joe. Unfortunately that's not the case.

When definitions of words change colloquially, their original definitions are typically "lost".

From what I'm reading here, if accurate, it doesn't look like there is much that separates "clips" from "magazines" that colloquially the average person (or even someone in the industry) might think they are interchangeable. If enough people follow suite then pretty soon they are interchangeable, even though they didn't originally start out that way and there were significant (albeit small) differences between the two.

I know of one such instance that has happened in the industry that I'm in. It bothers me to no end, but not many people know the difference between the two terms, so they have eventually been accepted as interchangeable terms when they are in fact are not.

It happens. Rather you like to believe it or not or accept it or not, it happens.

 

[bob]

WWW.........i dont care how YOU or anyone want to dissect a word, to any meaning of what it is colloquially, it has ment the same thing since since the begining of the gun.
your doing this semantic argument when it really has no end. tomato= tomaaaato.

Ah, the Humpty Dumpty defense...

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master that's all."

Charles Lutwidge Dodgson in "Through the Looking Glass"

Fun but still a fallacy.

 

[Marlene]

My rights are mine and they are untouchable. 'Unalienable' is the term used in the founding documents.

You always cede your rights for what seems like a good reason or situation but when the situation has passed and the good reason is gone away you never get your rights back.

Never cede ANY right you have, never allow ANY encroachment no matter how trivial for ANY reason whatsoever. Never. Ever. Once you swap your rights for what seems like a bit of safety or for whatever good reason at the time, they are gone forever.

we did that after 9/11. a bunch of rights were lost in the name of keeping us safe so, yes, I agree we have to really watch out for jumping into somehting we may not be able to reverse. where I differ is with the individual just doing something because they can without taking responsiblity for what happens next. again, I totally blame Nancy Lanza for the shootings in Conn. she had a right to own the guns she owned and the clips/magizines (what ever the he!! they are called) and took her son who had major issues out to teach him how to use them. her rights were hers but she should have used her head and thought about having these guns with easy access in the home with a disturbed person. no one wants to have new laws (or most don't) but that is what happens when people do as they please because they can and they tromp on the rights of others by doing so. I am sick of turning on the news to hear that yet another nutjob killed a bunch of people and then find out they got the guns in their own home. it isn't people with mental issues that are the problem, it is the people around them.

as to putting armed guards in schools how do you decide which schools? it isn't the scary inner city schools that these types of shootings happen. instead, I would totally support every teacher being armed with tasers. also, there needs to be better doors on our schools both exterior and interior. metal exterior doors, not glass and metal doors on class rooms. what is the point of school lock downs if a quick kick can break the glass.

 

[CES020]

Just curious, can anyone name one thing the government does efficiently? Why would handling this issue be any different?

Everything they touch turns into a disaster. Every cost "savings" ends up in a "cost increase", every thing they do to help one set of people, hurts another set. Look at what's about to happen with Health Care. It was sold as the plan to help those at the bottom end of the economic chain.

So what's happening now? To avoid the cost, people in restaurants are changing full time jobs to part time to get around it all. So now those that were full time restaurant workers are now part time. While barely making it on their 40 hour wages, now they are cut to 30. That means they'll have to get another job, and work 2 jobs to make the same money as before. How'd that exactly help them? They had health care and a 40 hour job, now they'll have to take care of their own health care expenses AND work 2 jobs. Gee, thanks for the help, Mr. Government man. Please stop helping me so much.

If the government demonstrated sound management practices and made fantastic decisions, it would be one thing, but how some people are so willing to turn over their rights to these babbling idiots is dumbfounding to me. How come when they want to take my rights away, I have to fall in line and say "Thank you sir, can I please have another?", but when I want to take their rights away, we're not having any of that. It's always a one way street and it's always going the wrong direction for me.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Just curious, can anyone name one thing the government does efficiently? Why would handling this issue be any different?

That takes me back to that incident that I mentioned oh so many pages ago with that government sponsored gun buy back program. A few of those guns wound up being re-sold illegally and then used in armed robberies. How is that for irony.

 

[Bigcat_hunter]

Just curious, can anyone name one thing the government does efficiently?

Yeah, take your money and put up red tape.

 

[bob]

we did that after 9/11. a bunch of rights were lost in the name of keeping us safe so, yes, I agree we have to really watch out for jumping into somehting we may not be able to reverse. where I differ is with the individual just doing something because they can without taking responsiblity for what happens next. again, I totally blame Nancy Lanza for the shootings in Conn. she had a right to own the guns she owned and the clips/magizines (what ever the he!! they are called) and took her son who had major issues out to teach him how to use them. her rights were hers but she should have used her head and thought about having these guns with easy access in the home with a disturbed person. no one wants to have new laws (or most don't) but that is what happens when people do as they please because they can and they tromp on the rights of others by doing so. I am sick of turning on the news to hear that yet another nutjob killed a bunch of people and then find out they got the guns in their own home. it isn't people with mental issues that are the problem, it is the people around them...

Not so. Every human being is responsible for itself. The kid that shot up the school is completely responsible for his behavior. His mama, his papa, his mailman, nor anyone else shares the responsibility. It doesn't matter a whit just what sort of weaponry his mother had laying about.He and he alone is responsible for what he did.

The entire notion of shared responsibility is wrong. It ends with the individual that did the deed, not with any ancillary people no matter how enabling they are perceived to be. If you start down the road of shared responsibility it ends in chaos. If you can blame the mother why then can't you blame the grandmother for giving birth to the mother? Where does the chain of shared responsibility end?

 

[Marlene]

Not so. Every human being is responsible for itself. The kid that shot up the school is completely responsible for his behavior. His mama, his papa, his mailman, nor anyone else shares the responsibility. It doesn't matter a whit just what sort of weaponry his mother had laying about.He and he alone is responsible for what he did.

The entire notion of shared responsibility is wrong. It ends with the individual that did the deed, not with any ancillary people no matter how enabling they are perceived to be. If you start down the road of shared responsibility it ends in chaos. If you can blame the mother why then can't you blame the grandmother for giving birth to the mother? Where does the chain of shared responsibility end?
__________________

he was responsible on what level of understanding that he had given the fact that he had mental issues. when you have a person living in your home who has a mental issue, you take on the responsbility for that mental issue or you put the person into an insititution that will make sure the person is cared for. Nancy Lanza did her son and society no favors in making sure her son had access to guns and ammo when he shouldn't have been trusted to take personal responsbility because he did not have the ability to do so.

every parent takes responsiblity for their children no matter their mental state until that child is of age. it is what parenting is. when you have a child with an issue and continue to care for that child past childhood into adulthood, yes you are responsible for the actions of that person when tht person can't be responsible themself.

no, I don't blame the grandmother for giving birth to Nancy Lanza, that is not the kind of responsiblilty I am talking about. yes, I do believe we are and should be responsible for our own actions and that is why I blame Nancy lanza for what happened and she not only didn't take responsilbity for her own actions knowing full well her son was a mental case, she provided him with all the tools needed to act on whatever insane thoughts were running around in his head. plain and simple, if you don't want guns laws, police yourself. keep firearms out of the hands of your children. know what your child is doing. be a spy and look into your child's life. many of these school shooting are done by kids, kids who way before hand showed all the signs of going off the rails. if you have a mentally unstable person living in your home, take the responsiblity for not providing weapons for that person to use. it is our first line of defense in this as when these shootings happen, rarely wer there no signs that something was wrong with the person.

 

[CES020]

For what it's worth, for those that think some fight too much to protect certain aspects of gun laws, here's a good indication why they do fight so much. Many for increasing gun control laws keep saying "they don't want to take your gun away, they just want to do blah blah blah", yet here is the champion of gun control laws, right after passing the assault weapons ban in the 90's.

http://youtu.be/blXkl9YVoHo

While the average person might like to see some tweaks to the system, when you have people like this on the other side, it's easy to see why people dig their heels in so deep and fight so hard against ANY changes. You're not sitting down with an honest broker trying to resolve an issue.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

he was responsible on what level of understanding that he had given the fact that he had mental issues. when you have a person living in your home who has a mental issue, you take on the responsbility for that mental issue or you put the person into an insititution that will make sure the person is cared for.

If the news report that I heard was accurate, she was in the process of trying to get him into an institution. This report had speculated that it was finding out that knowledge that was the trigger for the incident. Although it's going to be hard to say for sure, since he wasn't of sound mind and body, so who really knows what ultimately was his reason.

I will say this, it is much harder to get a 20 yr old (and up), into a mental institution or at least declared non compos mentis then it is a child. My mom just went through this getting her mother diagnosed with dementia in order to get power of attorney to get her proper care. It isn't easy to do so. I would imagine even harder when trying to get it done with a young adult. If I recall correctly Adam was 20.

Now, I do believe the mother shares part of the blame, especially if the report that I had heard is accurate. Once she started the process of trying to get him into an institution, she should have made sure that the guns were either much harder to get to or somewhere else until he was gone.