Gun-maker airlifts 20,000 extended magazines into Colorado ahead of ban

[Playinghardball]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/30/gun-maker-airlifts-20000-extended-magazines-into-colorado-ahead-of-ban/



Gun-maker Magpul airlifted thousands of extended assault rifle magazines into a Colorado gun show on Saturday, giving away 1,500 and putting the rest up for sale just 24 hours before a new law takes effect that makes the magazines illegal across the state.

The event, “A Farewell to Arms,” attracted over 3,000 gun enthusiasts who received free extended magazines with their purchases, according to CBS Denver. An additional 18,500 magazines were designated to be sold at discount, with the proceeds going to benefit a pro-gun group calling itself “Free Colorado.”

The clips were airlifted in on a helicopter and rode along with the event’s keynote speaker, Republican political commentator Dana Losech. Video shows the chopper landing in Glendale’s Infinity Park to cheers as a man’s voice booms over the public announcement system: “This is freedom!”

The group behind the event, Free Colorado, claims to be a non-profit organization and was cited as such by area media, but a search of the Secretary of State’s registered charitable organizations reveals no records for a group of that name. There was no contact information furnished on the group’s website.

A slate of new laws taking effect across the state on Monday will ban the production and sales of magazines that hold more than 15 bullets and mandate background checks for all purchases, including private and online sales.

Colorado lawmakers began working on the slate of gun control regulations after 12 were killed and 58 were injured by a gunman in an Aurora theater last July — the second major mass shooting in the state’s recent history. The alleged shooter, James Holmes, reportedly used an assortment of firearms including a semi-automatic assault weapon with a 100-round drum magazine.

Homes is set to go on trial in February. Prosecutors have rejected an offer to plead guilty in exchange for life in prison instead of the death penalty. A judge ruled last Thursday that Holmes, who has pleaded insanity and now looks very different than in his widely-publicized mugshot, will be restrained during his trial by a harness that’s attached to the floor.

Gun enthusiasts throughout the state are already gearing up for a series of recall elections aimed at knocking the gun control legislation’s key proponents out of office. Activists said earlier this month that they have gathered more than twice the number of signatures needed to initiate a recall election against Colorado Senate President John Morse (D).

This video was published to YouTube on Saturday, June 29, 2013.

[Mojorabbit]

1. Pushback. Wonder how it will end up. nt

[Llewlladdwr]

2. Good for them. nt

[aikoaiko]

3. I would call 30 round mags standard, not extended

To each their own.

[ileus]

33. Maybe they were dropping the new 40's

[Arcanetrance]

4. Forgive my ignorance but I would think as a civilian if you've gotten into a situation where you

need 30 rounds it may be time to reevaluate your life and the choices you made to lead to said situation.

[Llewlladdwr]

5. I regularly use 30 round mags at the range.

So far my life seems okay, but I grant that change is always coming.

[BainsBane]

9. the exertion required to reload

is too much for them.

[Arcanetrance]

10. I try not to demonize people but I do wonder why not shoot

With less ammo if I was a gun person it's the approach I'd take because you'd have to learn to make all shots count

[BainsBane]

11. Or take a few seconds to reload

There is a thread in GD where they are talking about how to violate the law.

[Arcanetrance]

12. See that bugs me because they always claim to be the good law abiding

gun owners and the others are bad and are a small percentage.

[BainsBane]

13. That's a fiction

one of many they spread.

[Arcanetrance]

14. That's why I don't debate them half the team I get words put in my mouth

Like being told I want to ban guns when all I've said is why not put in place real and effective gun control measures

[BainsBane]

16. There is no point

On one hand they pretend to support some measures, and on the other they argue they are useless and superficial and scheme to violate them. Most are on the far extreme of the gun issue.

[beevul]

21. Look whos talking.

Look whos talking:

Thread title:

"It's time to rewrite the 2nd Amendment- How would YOU rewrite it?"

Your response:

"This":



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2894402

With a viewpoint like that, I'm sure anyone but anti-gunners look extreme to you.

[BainsBane]

22. What's the problem?

Going to do away with the First Amendment so I can't question your sacred guns?

[beevul]

23. Not at all.

Just explaining for those unfamiliar, those who may have drawn...an inaccurate conclusion, and those that may wish to know, how relativity comes in to play, when you apply the words "the far extreme of the gun issue".

You have after all, self identified yourself as what most Americans would call "far extreme", in saying you would delete amendment 2.

75ish present of Americans support amendment 2 as an individual right, rather than wanting to "delete" it.

[NaturalHigh]

25. Fortunately for the rational-minded types on this issue...

courts have been fairly defensive of the 2nd Amendment of late. Even Chicago is going to have to allow concealed carry sometime in the near future. Who would have guessed that the old Chicago policy of "no legal handguns" wouldn't work out well?

[BainsBane]

29. "rational" privileges guns over human life?

You have a strange version of rationality. The rest of the world knows this country is insane on gun policy, and they are right.

Jesus. The rationality trope is relentless. Caring about human life makes one "irrational." Caring about profits and stockpiling weapons is somehow "rational."

[BainsBane]

28. Unlike gun nuts

I respect the law. It is what it is. I don't advocate breaking it because I don't like what it says, like your gunner friends. You have Scalia and Roberts to thank for guaranteeing an individual right to bear arms. Thanks to the Federalist Society, your "rights" are more important than everyone else's.

So yes, I wish we did not have a country where too many value their "right" to amass any and every weapon they want over the right of the rest of our right to live. In fact, I wish they recognized that we have a right to live, but they do not. They care only about their own ability to have their own personal arsenal so they can be ready to kill at a moments notice. Anyone who cares about human life would wish we had a different country, but some relish the fact that our society is based on violence and corporate profit. I am not one of them. I wish I could share this country with people who cared more about social justice and human life more than corporate profits, material acquisition, and the deadly culture of violence they have worked so diligently to create. Sadly I do not.

I also wish we had universal healthcare and a fair wage for all Americans. I know that is inconsequential compared to your desire to have assault weapons and 150 round drums, but that doesn't stop me from wishing we had a society where compassion and humanity took precedence over profit and death. Instead. we have the most violent society in the First World. The gun lobby has worked hard to create this blood drenched society.

Call me radical in caring about human life if that makes you happy. I have no problem living with my positions. They don't result in 38,000 homicides each and every year.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. "I don't advocate breaking it because I don't like what it says."

Call me radical...

Actually, the term that came to mind was "hysterical fantasist." Nothing of what you described is even remotely close to the truth but it saddens me to think rather than taking comfort in the fact that gun owners do not want a world drenched in blood (HINT: there are 80 MILLION gun owners in this nation, there was only 50,000 jihadists in Iraq at the height of the war) you would actually be more angry. To learn that gun owners want nothing more than to live their lives undisturbed and have no interest in disrupting your life would probably further upset you all the more. You would carry-on and protest; demanding it isn't true. Because, without the fictional threat, you have no power to your argument. I bet that scares you more than the guns themselves.

The mere presence of guns is not the cause of gun violence. Guns do not seize the mind and inspire hostility (Well, apparently they do with some *cough*). You can't even carry on a conversation without resorting to insults, vilification and morbid fantasy and yet you dare complain about the lack of peace. Peace only comes when BOTH sides stop the attacks. If you demand the other side stop attacking while continuing your own attacks you aren't asking for peace, you're demanding conquest.

Good folks tend to distrust would-be conquerors and I can't say as I blame them.

I hear it was once a Progressive slogan to say, "If you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem." What will you do today to bring down the level of hostility?

[Hoyt]

59. Surely, you are not trying to equate your poor gun plight to the real civil rights movement.

Such right wing NRA tactics are shameful. There is no comparison.

[beevul]

66. Do you?

So you think Rosa Parks should have sat somewhere else, do you?

You can just cut the bull. You respect the laws you respect, don't respect the ones you don't respect, just like every single other adult in America.

That or you think Rosa Parks should have sat elsewhere, and that the federal government should be arresting those in CA and CO who possess and use MJ.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

I don't have scalia or roberts or any of the justices to thank for anything on this subject, except for upholding what a MAJORITY of Americans already knew. That amendment 2 protects a right that belongs to the people. People are at their lowest common denominator, individuals.

Your problem, is that you see it as either one way or the other. If guns are allowed, peoples lives are less important than guns. You said it yourself, that that is your position. You seem unwilling or unable to understand that it is not simply a choice of one or the other. I suspect that is because its the guns that are the issue to you, more than anything else, and your behavior and statements on the issue, continue to indicate this.

Again with the "corporate profits" schtick. 2006 is calling to you. You may not be aware of this, but avenue of attack is tried, failed, and old. Everyone who has any familiarity to the firearms industry knows full well that domestic firearms industry is small, when compared to...just about any other industry.

You know FULL WELL, that gun rights supporters don't see this as an issue of human life versus corporate profit. You also know full well, that it ISN'T an issue of human life versus corporate profit. What you're doing, is flinging shit against the wall, in the desperate hope that you can get something to stick.

I have no desire to have 150 round drums, or any so-called assault weapons. I might even be willing to support magazine size restrictions for rifles, under the right cisrumstances.


You also know full well, that there are not "38,000 homicides each and every year". You know that's untrue. You've been told its untrue repeatedly, and yet you insist on repeating that falsehood. You know that there are roughly ten thousand a year, and that the rest are suicides. I can just hear it now..."Oh, so those other lives do not matter?". Of course they matter, but in refusing to call them what they are, refusing to acknowledge what they are, and therefore being unable to deal with them for what they are, You, madam, do those people a disservice every bit as grave as you accuse us of doing.

You've never stopped to give that any thought have you.

[BainsBane]

88. Trying to equate gun nuts with Civil Rights is repulsive

on every level, particularly because the effect of gun violence and the SYG laws the gun nuts promote is racist. Get over yourself. You're not persecuted. The gun proponents are allied with one of the most powerful corporate lobbies in this country. They rule the rest of us.

[beevul]

127. The discussion was about whether people obey ALL the laws or just the ones they agree with.

Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:18 AM - Edit history (1)

(On edit)
"Trying to equate gun nuts with Civil Rights is repulsive on every level, particularly because the effect of gun violence and the SYG laws the gun nuts promote is racist. Get over yourself."

I added this part, because I've decided to keep count of how many times you attribute to me, something that I haven't done, a position which I do not hold, or or a message that I did not convey.

In this case, you are attempting to attribute to me, something which I neither did, nor intended to do, nor would appear to any reasonable individual person as having done or attempted to do. Doing such a thing, certainly does not constitute civility or good faith discussion.


That said, and returning to the topic which you've failed to steer me away from...


MY position, is that people in general, respect and abide laws they agree with, and don't respect laws they don't agree with them, often to the point of disobeying those laws.

And by people, I mean people of all gender, races, ideologies, religions, and creeds.

YOUR position, is that people that break the law are law breakers and therefore icky. That's your position, except when it isn't.

It has nothing to do with persecution, and everything to do with your principles, and/or lack there of, in situations where it suits you - which you have aptly demonstrated. Fact is, with situational principles like those you've demonstrated, you really have no room to criticize those of anyone else.

[Jenoch]

111. "...38,000 homicides each and every year."

You lose some credibility with statements such as this one.

[Eleanors38]

44. Uh, banes, there is the response you wanted: Your own words.

NOTE TO JURORS: bane has repeatedly
asked for proof that she has ever advocated for bans, and implying she is being accused of something she doesn't advocate.

This should settle that matter.

This is not a personal attack, nor a violation of SOP, nor advocacy of law-breaking. Thank you for your patience.

[BainsBane]

70. I suggest you try reading

I wish. I also wish I had a billion dollars. That doesn't mean I'm actively seeking it.
There is a difference between what I would ideally like and what I seek politically. That concept is probably foreign to you because you are so used to getting everything you want. I know I never will.

[Eleanors38]

75. Very weak dodge, very disingenuousness....

NOTE TO JURORS: This is not an attack on this poster, though she continues DU-legitimized attacks on pro-2A posters. You may wish to "DELETE" this thread as this poster has suggested that the entire Second Amendment be "DELETED," all the while claiming she is not a gun banner. Please reference posts upstream to gain a sense of the shifting, glancing even disingenuous nature of her positions.

FURTHER NOTE TO JURORS: The poster in question stakes out a position of "DELETING" the 2A, but claims not to be "working for it." This would seem to suggest either:

(1) A crude political deception global in scope, or

(2) Her commitment to gun bans pales in significance when compared to her evident desire to treat the issues as sport.

Or quite possibly both.

[BainsBane]

86. Are you having a conversation with me or potential jurors

My point was pretty basic. It shouldn't be difficult for anyone to grasp. I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend the difference between wishing something were true and promoting something politically.

There really is no point in talking to someone who has no interest in my actual views.

[BainsBane]

71. Note to jurors?

Why? You think jurors should hide my post because I don't like the Second Amendment and the homicides that result from how the courts have interpreted it in recent years? You need a compass.

[BainsBane]

87. What "gross deception"

That's a serious charge. You better back it up.

[tosh]

126. Great response to that OP.

Wish I'd thought of it.

Hey, BainsBane -

[Rod Walker]

48. That would be the thread where you accused me of breaking the law and then (to your credit)

retracted the statement after I pressed you on it...would it not?

Pointing out when a law is useless and unenforceable is a good thing.

[BainsBane]

55. Oh, you poor thing

However can you bear the oppression of being exposed to Democratic ideas on a Democratic site called Democratic Underground?

I know this will come as a shock to you, but you were not the only person posting in that thread. That thread shows just how little respect gun nuts have for the law.

[Eleanors38]

43. When training for the military or self defense, the debate...

for over hundred years has been between:

(1) Advocates of accurate and conservationist fire.

(2) Advocates of mass overwhelming fire.

With the advent of the mass-produced "unitized cartridge" (which replaced the muzzle-loading charge) and consequential development of repeater technologies, the argument has clearly tilted toward the latter.

Many people try for both ways, esp. in the new shooting sports involving speed, different arms, and target placement. But the average Joe is purchasing semi-auto with greater magazine capacity to counter possible deadly attack; few are interested in considered aim and shot placement when in extremis. In that regard, I am behind the times for self-defense: I use a

powerful 6-shot revolver

[Arcanetrance]

49. See that's my question tho what is the average Joe defending themselves against that they need such

large capacity

[Eleanors38]

79. If the data on why people have guns is correct,

sport shooting (where events are often built around repeated shooting), or home defense where multiple armed home invaders can multiply their firepower. A comparatively smaller number (though growing) use extended mags for use in feral hog eradication where the objective is to shoot as many of the pests as possible. Evidently, the AR-15 and its hunting derivatives are the weapon of choice, but not the AK-47 clones, a weapon in the same class.

Did you have any other possibilities for the average Joe?

[Arcanetrance]

82. Forgive me because this is the city in me coming out are feral hogs that big of a problem

As far as sport shooting goes theoretically it all takes place at a range. So why not have people who take part in sport shooting keep their rifles in a safe at the range of their choice. Looking on the browning site for example their 9mm browning hi power comes with a 13 round magazine standard. Take into some state laws that will only allow ten round magazines both come off as fairly sufficient to take on home intruders if your not shooting blindly or crazy.

[clffrdjk]

83. So what do you offer in trade?

I seem to be giving up a whole lot of ground and getting nothing in return but promises that this is just the first step of many. Also have fair warning in my opinion the laws need to apply to all, the second you mention exempting even on duty police you lose any support you may have had from me.

[Arcanetrance]

84. Actually I believe police should be covered under the same restrictions

I also believe that the guns issued to them by the department should stay at the station. I don't see a problem with a limit to clip size for handguns at 10 or 13 rounds. As far as rifles used for hunting I'm not a hunter I have never done it in my life. So if someone wants to discuss this with me I'd be quite open but I would think if your hunting with a semi automatic rifle a clip no bigger than 7 would do the trick. I understand some people say sport shooters use 30 round clips I would understand an exemption for that with the caveat that the rifles used for sport along with the 30 round clips are kept in a person safe at a gun range of the shooters choice. I would like to see background checks on everyone who purchases a gun the criminal database will be matched against a mental health database. There should be liability insurance carried for accidents I believe premiums on said insurance should go down for those that don't have any theoretically that should mean 99% should pay very low premiums. Licenses should have to be renewed every 4 years much like with a drivers license The guns I would like to see banned are ones that are fully automatic or have the option to be fully automatic. I don't mean it takes a bunch of modification to make it fully automatic I mean sold as either semi or fully. I have no problem if people want to own guns I just would like to see what I consider a few reasonable restrictions in place.

[jmg257]

97. FWIW - general sale, and use, of full autos is pretty small.

The NFA took care of them years ago, and the registry for new ones has been closed for some time now.

They are not just simply available to the general population w/o numerous controls/steps to take.

[Arcanetrance]

99. Did not know that I figured that it was a fairly small percentage that own them

Those are the only guns I could see outright banning from the hands of civilians

[jmg257]

100. I guarantee you if there was similiar production allowed and similiar controls

(or lack there of) compared to semi-auto versions they would be just about as popular.

Many of the hottest debates in legislatures comes from attempts to ban the semi-auto "assault weapon" versions of many of the full-auto assault rifles. And/or limit the lethality of them, and other semi-autos, via mag limits.


I find it curious that the NFA was challenged in US vs Miller - but for a sawed off shotgun. Per the decision, if he had been a carrying a Browning Auto Rifle (WW1 military arm), restrictions on full auto would likely have been struck down due to militia usage & the 2nd amendment.

[Arcanetrance]

103. Forgive me if I'm wrong because I will admit I know very little of guns

But banning anything labelled semiauto would basically ban any modern gun that isn't reloaded manually

[jmg257]

106. Well- there is a pretty distinct class known as "semi-auto".

Repeating arms such as pump & lever action, or closer to SA - revolvers - could certainly be seperated easy enough in code.

The intended purpose for going after semi-auto only would/should likely be because a huge chunk of modern semi-autos have detachable magazines, which increase reload speed, increasing capacity greatly even after any initial high-capacity mag is emptied.

Wouldn't be too popular a law, as you could iimagine!

[Arcanetrance]

109. So would you support a limit on the mag size with an exception for 30 round

magazines during competition type events

[jmg257]

110. Personally? I have no real issues with 10 round mag limits for all.

Competition usage should be way down on the list of priorities if the govt interest is there to control guns for safety reasons.

I would take issue with smaller restrictions w/o grandfathering, cause they would eliminate a huge bunch of existing weapons that likely no one would make new mags for (NYers are dealing with this re;7rnds). Though of course grandfathering sort of defeats the effectiveness of such laws too. Some sort of limited grandfathering could work, so that collectible relics like 70or old M1 Carbine 15round mags don't have to be destroyed, or seperated from their $2000 rifles - things like that.

[Arcanetrance]

113. I agree competition usage is definitely not the biggest priority

That's why I think this is a national issue not a states issue there's to much patchwork going on. For example in my state New York they have a 7 round limit but right across in New Jersey the capacity limit is 15. I think it should be a national law trumping all that would put it at 10 rounds. That would seem to me a reasonable number.

[jmg257]

114. Yep - 10rnds should work, mags have been made already, etc. nt

[Arcanetrance]

117. So do you own guns at all

[jmg257]

120. Yes, I do. nt

[Arcanetrance]

121. Okay I was asking because it seems reasonable control can be reached

if those of us want gun control and those who own guns actually talk.

[jmg257]

122. One would think so. But don't underestimate fear and selfishness.

Very strong contributers for people when they form opinions...especially one which many consider as life & death.

[Jenoch]

116. The last time a fully-auto

gun was used in a crime that I can think of is the North Hollywood Bank Shootout in the late 90s. These full-auto guns are so expensive ($25,000 and up) that they just are not used in crime in the U.S.

[Jenoch]

115. The range I shoot at is on property I own.

I keep guns in a safe at home. We never leave guns at the cabin on the land where the range is located.

[Hoyt]

61. Just what we need, thousands of yahoos acting like our city streets are war zones.

That's some sick, irrational crud you are promoting.

[Eleanors38]

80. "war zones?" You mean Chi & Baltimore in certain hoods?

[Hoyt]

81. Actually I don't "Eleanors 38 special pistol." Is that the only place you tote your beloved guns?

[BainsBane]

89. Chicago doesn't crack the top ten of the country's most

dangerous cities.

[EX500rider]

124. Actually Chicago is number 1 in "violent crime"

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

[BainsBane]

125. It's number 16

in homicides. Also, those are 2011 stats. It's murder rate is down 40% this year.

[Apophis]

15. Exactly.

It's too much work to reload a gun.

[BainsBane]

18. Given the distaste for physical exertion

one wonders how they make it from the parking lot to the stand in the range they shoot from.

[Apophis]

19. This made me lol.

[Skittles]

31. they are cowards

they fear in that time they will be defenseless

[Eleanors38]

45. How many of 80,000,000 fellow Americans do you consider cowardly?

[Skittles]

54. are you implying

there are 80,000,000 Americans having the vapors over extended assault rifle magazines???

[NickB79]

57. Rifle and pistol magazines are both covered

And almost all handguns today utilize magazines holding more than the 10 rounds we were allowed under the old AWB. In some states like NY, you can only have 7 round magazines.

Since handguns are some of the most commonly purchased firearms today, I would say a substantial portion of the 80 million US gun owners would probably be affected if extended magazine limits were put in place nation-wide.

[Skittles]

62. LOLOL

so they ARE having the vapors?

[NickB79]

63. Some of them, yeah

Have you seen the prices being paid for high-cap magazines lately, IF you can find them? I've already sold my 30-rd mags and switched to 10-rd mags for all my firearms (except for my .22LR, I like 25-rd mags for that one), so it doesn't really affect me either way.

[Skittles]

64. sorry, me no gun humper

[Eleanors38]

73. I am stating: You haven't answered. How many of 80 million?

[BainsBane]

72. If someone feels a need to be armed to leave the house

Seems to me that qualifies.

[billh58]

144. How many of

this 80 million American gun owners do you pretend to speak for? 10? 50? 100? Only yourself?

[Abq_Sarah]

68. Do you shoot recreationally?

My question is... why would any shooter not want a 30 round magazine?

The bottom line is a legal firearms owner doesn't need to justify a 30 round magazine over a 10 round any more than you need to justify driving 50 miles vs walking 50 miles.

[BainsBane]

8. too rational for gungeoneers

but an excellent point nonetheless.

[RGR375]

51. Home invasion stats

Last I checked the FBI said that home invasions went from 1-2 people and 1-2 shots being fired to 4-5 people with an average of 17 shots fired. I will keep my 30 round mags.

[Arcanetrance]

52. Again 17 shots fired for 4-5 people is excessive

[BlueJazz]

7. I see the customers are already standing in line.

[moondust]

17. Merchants of death.

Kaching on your bullet-ridden ass!!!

[alittlelark]

20. Sick, sick, sick........

[msongs]

24. counselors are standing by to help those who cant their gun jollies in time nt

[NaturalHigh]

26. Remember all the people freaking out about the 3-D gun a while back?

They're really going to spaz when they realize that it's going to be a lot easier to print high capacity magazines.

[ZRT2209]

27. that child is scary-looking

[pinboy3niner]

30. Funny--20-round mags were good enough for us in the combat Infantry in Vietnam

I'll never understand the justifications for all this gun shit here in my country. Never. Nor how so many gun deaths are tolerated, and any attempts at mitigation are opposed so virulently. It's just batshit crazy.

[hack89]

34. Until the army determined that 30 was even better. nt

[pinboy3niner]

36. For wartime combat. nt

[hack89]

37. I support magazine size limits

they won't have any significant impact on gun violence but I would like to see the President win a round or two.

I support all proposed gun control laws except for an AWB and registration.

[pinboy3niner]

38. That's a good start, hack

[hack89]

40. It is comments like yours that explain why gun control is struggling

if it is only good start, what is a good ending?

[pinboy3niner]

41. Baby steps, hack. Baby steps.

[hack89]

42. So why should gun owners support you

if you are not willing to tell us what your final goal is?

[Eleanors38]

46. Pinboy doesn't realize his role in keeping things the same.

[BainsBane]

65. Well, the NRA is doing what they can to take care of that pesky

First Amendment. Nothing the gun cabal hates more than free speech, which is why you blame everything on the fact people have the nerve to voice their views. They should realize this isn't really their country. It belongs to the corporate masters of the gun lobby that you've aligned yourself with.

[beevul]

67. Remind me again...

" Nothing the gun cabal hates more than free speech, which is why you blame everything on the fact people have the nerve to voice their views. They should realize this isn't really their country."

Remind me again, which forum blocks people for not subscribing to a rigid viewpoint, which group created it, and how big is their block list? And which forum doesn't do that?

Please, carry on about our hatred of free speech some more.

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. You ask inconvenient questions, which will be ignored or talked around...

[BainsBane]

136. Amazingly

There aren't enough hours in the day to read all the responses you gun folks leave. I actually have a job.

I have to wonder why you all even care what someone like me thinks? You know you will never change my mind, yet you pounce relentlessly. One was even stalking me via PM. What point do you all think your making? Is this all some elaborate performance to convince yourselves your views aren't fundamentally immoral? Take it up with a religious or counseling professional and leave me out of your inner turmoil.

[BainsBane]

140. In that case

You don't need to comment on why I haven't responded, and you can quit gossiping about me in the gungeon.

[BainsBane]

91. Here, I'll remind you again

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Now, you don't seem to grasp it's meaning. It doesn't say a safe haven group on a private website can't limit subscribers. It says "congress shall make no law . . .abridging the freedom of speech." The NRA has pushed congress to do just that in a variety of ways, and much to congress's shame, they have gone along with it.

[beevul]

128. Nope. Your own words said this...

Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:21 AM - Edit history (1)

Nope. Your own words said this:

"Nothing the gun cabal hates more than free speech, which is why you blame everything on the fact people have the nerve to voice their views."

And it was in response to a pro-gun poster too.

"Now, you don't seem to grasp it's meaning."

I grasp its meaning just fine madam.

You however, didn't say "amendment 1", you said free speech. And you said that the " the gun cabal" hates free speech, and tied it to a pro-gun poster when you said "which is why you (underlining mine) blame everything on the fact people have the nerve to voice their views".

When you did that, you made it very crystal clear who you were talking about, and it that it was not "the evil nra" or "congress" that you meant by "gun cabal".


So we are back where we were:

Delicious irony, you here complaining about free speech. You, co-author of an sop, for a group which you helped create. The SOP craftily written and widely interpreted, with the intent to block the speech of all but the most strident gun control supporters.

Had you forgotten the discussion in your very own newly created group, about preemptively blocking people before they ever posted in there?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172115091

Or how loudly and regularly you and so many others who frequent your group protested due to a single blocked poster in the gun forum, for that matter?

I haven't.



Yeah, like I said. Delicious irony.

[BainsBane]

135. This is a Democratic website

Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2013, 08:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Since you find that so objectionable, take it up with Skinner.

I was specifically talking about the NRA's efforts to undermine the First Amendment, something none of you so-called "rights" activists give a fuck about.

I make no apologies for not liking Teabag views.

[beevul]

141. Non sequitur.

Just more tossing turds at the wall in the hopes something will stick.

[BainsBane]

138. You mean like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172126335#post14

[beevul]

142. Asking whether someone supports a thing...

Asking whether someone supports a thing, is not the same as suggesting that that thing actually be done.

To most people anyway.


I asked whether someone would support a thing, in the post you linked to, but did not suggest that that thing should actually be done.

You on the other hand, made it crystal clear what you WOULD do.





Feel free to continue assert that those two things are remotely the same.

[BainsBane]

143. That doesn't even pass the laugh test

If you'll recall, my post in ATA was merely a question: Why is this okay?

[Eleanors38]

77. Ah, it must be nice to not have to worry about personal attack,

esp. when one makes them.

[aikoaiko]

50. 30 round mags are standard issue for civilian police too

It's not considered gratuitous or extreme in civilian situations.

Police are confronting the same criminals who are victimizing non-LEO civilians.

[Hoyt]

32. Hope that kid moves on to loving another human, not just assault weapons.

[pintobean]

39. Do you know this kid?

Or, can you tell who or what he loves just from the picture?

[otohara]

53. Educated Guess Perhaps?

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see the kid is giddy with is bad ass gun.
He's being groomed to like guns, just like his daddy.

[Hoyt]

58. Exactly.

[ileus]

35. and they couldn't even find a picture of a magpul magazine...

[X_Digger]

56. One clarification.. non-profit doesn't mean charity.

Most non-profits are not charities. All squirrels are mammals, but not all mammals are squirrels.

[LanternWaste]

60. Last bit of branding the marketers can get in to better fleece the sheep.

Last bit of branding the marketers can get in to better fleece the sheep.

[mountain grammy]

78. A local RW nut posted on her facebook

that she and her equally batshit crazy husband bought the large clips June 30th, even though they don't own the weapons, just to exercise their "2nd amendment rights," and dare the governor to take away their bullets.
We're dealing with children.

[Eleanors38]

85. You are looking at push back. What do you have to respond with?

Democrats in Colorado will have to answer for this unworkable and doomed-to-fail legislation -- all for the benefit of those wanting to feel good about: " my morals are more moral than your morals."

The country faces so many growing problems, yet political energy is wasted on this.

[BainsBane]

92. There is NOTHING more important than human life

NOTHING.

[oneshooter]

93. So which life is more important to you.

Yours, or the person attacking you.

[BainsBane]

95. like Zimmermans or Trayvon Martin's?

I'm worried about the person shooting at me with a gun. That is the only threat to my life.

[oneshooter]

96. Are either of them likly to attack you?

If the answer is no then you did not answer. Gun, knife, club, fists, the question remains the same. Whose life is more important to you, yours or your attacker?

[BainsBane]

102. The greatest threat to my life is from guns

If anyone is going to attack me, I much prefer he used his fists or a knife than a gun. However, that is not where the threat to my life comes. It comes from being caught to the cross fire of people shooting at each other, as happened recently in front of my house. That left two bullet holes from a 45 in my car, and holes in 3 of my neighbors cars. Thankfully, no one was hurt.

You can be all abstract about theoretical attacks, but I experience actual gun violence. I know how it really is.

[oneshooter]

107. So answer the question. If you dare to.

[Jenoch]

118. If somebody attacked you on the sidewalk in front of your

home with a knife, you would likely have more serious injuries than if some shot at you with a gun. In order for an attacker to injure you with a knife, they have to get up close. Most of the cowardly criminals don't get close with a gun. They shoot and miss. Most cops are more afraid of a perp with a knife than they are a perp with a handgun.

[friendly_iconoclast]

129. No, it isn't- disease and accidents are far more likely to get you (or anyone else)

[Duckwraps]

104. Not freedom, not liberty?

A whole lot of people in this country gave their lives for those principles.

[mountain grammy]

94. Why is it "doomed to fail?' Why is it "unworkable?"

Why is it wasted to keep large magazines out of public hands? What energy is wasted on having people fill out a goddam form before they buy a weapon of war capable of slaughtering large numbers of people in a few seconds?
I can't for the life of me figure out what the hell you are talking about...

[oneshooter]

98. If you want a "weapon of war" it requires a 20+ page form and a 6 month

background check, $200 for the tax stamp and anywhere from $8000 on up for the weapon.



However if you want a semi automatic rifle the choose one, fill out a 3 page form, go through a FBI background check (phone call), be approved, pay for your purchase, pick it up and leave.

[mountain grammy]

101. These semi automatics with huge clips are designed for one purpose..

to kill large amounts of people in a short time. In other words, war! For what other purpose would someone need this weapon?

[Jenoch]

119. There are several posts on this thread

that answer this question of yours.

[mountain grammy]

123. oh yeah, feral hogs, that's right.

[friendly_iconoclast]

130. Just because it isn't what you want to hear doesn't mean it's wrong...

...neccessarily- a principle you might wish to remember.

[mountain grammy]

131. Look, the level of gun violence in America is unacceptable.

Many military personnel and veterans agree that weapons designed to kill large numbers of people in a few short seconds do not belong in the hands of civilians.
It has nothing to do with what I want to hear, it's just goddam common sense. What is wrong with that?

[friendly_iconoclast]

132. "(M)ilitary personnel and veterans" don't get to decide what the rest of us are allowed to do.

Besides, I could state with equal validity that "Many veterans like shooting modern weapons that
accept magazines larger than ten rounds".

And appeals to authority aside, appealing to 'common sense' is also a logical fallacy.

In any event, gun violence in America has decreased over the last few decades.

Could more be done to decrease it? Sure- but blaming inanimate objects for human behavior
won't work...

[mountain grammy]

133. I am happy to live in a state where the legislature does the will of the people

and passes much needed legislation regulating the sale and distribution of weapons. I believe this is necessary in order to live in a safe and civil society.
I do not believe these weapons belong in a civilized society any more than tanks and missiles.

[friendly_iconoclast]

134. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

[joeglow3]

90. On a side note, a not for profit does not need to be a charitable organization

Our neighborhood association is a not-for-profit, but is not a charitable organization.

[Arctic Dave]

108. LOL. Airlift my ass.

A dinky little 206(?) with a few crates of magazines.

[kentuck]

112. Doesn't that just warm your heart...?

What does the future hold??