Another Predictable Gun Ban


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

@Anddenex,

I'm going to take a different tack to what (I believe) you're trying to say.

With the current state of the gun-control lobby and the level of knowledge of Democrat legislators (and even the general public) we have to be concerned about the language of the bill not being too broad or vague (which is often done on purpose).  If they were to ban a gun capable of firing a .223 round, it takes no stretch of the imagination to apply that legislation to a gun capable of firing a .22 round.

  • They don't even know the definition of "semi-automatic".  It's just "scary sounding."  That's all they know. 
  • "Weapons of war" is a meaningless term.  Every gun is made for war.  Some are more effective or have different purposes.  But any gun can be used effectively in war.  That's the whole point. 
  • Trump banned bump-stocks through executive order because it was, indeed, a "cheat" (IMHO).  But the Dem reps didn't even know what a bump-stock was.  They just had another "term" to rally against.
  • They completely fabricated the term "assault rifle" for no reason other than to ban "scary-looking" guns that were functionally no different than many other guns that were ignored.

Given the people we are dealing with in Washington, does anyone really think that any legislation aimed at .223 weapons will not be applied to .22 weapons?

That is correct Carb. What you have summed up here was the intent of my original post. The post began with a search online pertaining to the term "weapon of war" with the following Google question. "What 22 caliber guns were used in war"? At this time, I didn't realize the 223 and the .22 were both 22 caliber bullets, and my origin al post never discussed velocity, gun powder, etc.... It was merely saying, if you use the term "weapon of war" (as you already pointed out -- purposely vague), then any gun can then be subject to that term. This means any gun then can be on the list to ban. They start with one and then it will roll down hill from there.

I made no argument that they were the same. I knew the .22LR and the .223 were different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Carb, there are two different discussions going on in this thread.  One is what you said, which as far as I know, we all agree on about gun grabbers and their antics.  The other is the below quote.  That quote is factually inaccurate, which is where the discussion of calibers occurred.  There is either ignorance or willful ignorance (I frankly don't know which) going on in that part of the discussion.   The M4 (and other variants) do not fire a .22 cartridge.

It is neither ignorance or willful ignorance. The US army, I already provided the link above anyone can read it, provides the following M4 (Link at anyone disposal). The following is in the description of the M4:

Caliber: 5.56x45 mm

I also provided another quote from another site (which entails what @Carborendum just specified regarding definitions). I will share the quote once again here:

"22 caliber, or 5.6 mm caliber, refers to a common firearms bore diameter of 0.22 inch (5.6 mm). Cartridges in this caliber include the very widely used . 22 Long Rifle and . 223 Remington / 5.56×45mm NATO."

The 5.56x45mm is referring to the size and diameter of the bullet. So, my statement is factually accurate.

Every article I can find specifies the same thing, "When looking at the .22LR vs .223, the truth is that the .223 is, in fact, a .22 caliber round," which is what I specified. And yet, everyone here who is saying its not, has not provided any source specifying why it is not, except their personal feelings.

I would be happy to see/read any other site that specifies why every site I have read thus far points the .223, the 5.56x45mm as a 22 caliber bullet, and yet people still want to say its not factual, or its ignorant to specify what others already claim as fact. Here is another article -- please refute it and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

They will end up with people burying their guns and ammo in the woods somewhere until the bans are lifted when the people have had enough.

It may be too late by then.  Give up your right to self defense and you may get relocated and or have everything stripped from you.

The time to stand up against tyranny is when you have a large group of people willing to stand up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2022 at 9:13 AM, Still_Small_Voice said:

It may be too late by then.  Give up your right to self defense and you may get relocated and or have everything stripped from you.

The time to stand up against tyranny is when you have a large group of people willing to stand up.

Are you actually calling for armed revolt? I don't think we are there yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Are you actually calling for armed revolt? I don't think we are there yet.

I am calling for using any peaceful means possible currently.  We still have most of the State governments on the side of the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court I think.

Someone needs to really challenge these wicked red flag gun confiscation laws.  Citizens are being denied their 2nd, 5th and 6th Amendment rights under these laws and there are about 19 States that have these laws on the books currently. 

I read in Florida if your 2nd Amendment rights and private firearms are stripped from you without your day in court you get no attorney unless you hire your own, and a one in six chance of getting your 2nd Amendment rights back.  They want you to prove that you are not a threat before giving you back your 2nd Amendment liberties.  Unless you are a cripple, confined to a wheelchair without use of your limbs then everyone is a potential threat.

Under the 6th Amendment citizens have these listed rights:

* Right to trial by an impartial jury

* Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation

* Right to be confronted with the witnesses against him

* Right to have a process for obtaining witnesses in his favor

* Right to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Red flag gun confiscation laws deny all or many of these rights to American citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

I think it's interesting that this thread is proceeding under an apparent assumption that all-out gun bans would only affect conservatives and that any true attempt to dismantle the 2A wouldn't have bipartisan opposition. Very interesting. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Godless said:

that all-out gun bans

It’ll never happen. One, it’s impossible to enforce. As evidenced in thread, people will  just lie and say their guns were “lost.” 

Two, democrats aren’t stupid. They know that it would cost them huge political capital. Essentially everyone outside the cities would never vote democrat again. Like it or not, even liberals own guns and enjoy shooting them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Godless said:

I think it's interesting that this thread is proceeding under an apparent assumption that all-out gun bans would only affect conservatives and that any true attempt to dismantle the 2A wouldn't have bipartisan opposition. Very interesting. 

No one said that but you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Godless said:

I think it's interesting that this thread is proceeding under an apparent assumption that all-out gun bans would only affect conservatives and that any true attempt to dismantle the 2A wouldn't have bipartisan opposition. Very interesting. 

I gotta give a little friendly snark here.  I think much of you @Godless, so please don't take it personally.

[snark] Glad to see that you and maybe a dozen or so other left-leaning folks would have our back, as we stand against the hundreds of blue elected officials and the tens of millions of their constituents who have done everything they possibly could to erode the 2A, whenever they get the opportunity. [/snark] 

In 2013, I lived through what I'd guess you call a "slightly-less-than-true" effort in blue democrat Colorado.  They were pushed into law by the emotionally charged Democrats, supported by an almost hysterical media.  Done against the staunch opposition of folks to the right.  To the right's credit, the ensuing political fallout made international news, and came within one recall election of turning the state legislature red.  The prospect of elected democrats having to run for their own seats in the middle of their term had a nationwide chilling effect on future gun control legislation for around 5 years.  But yeah, the left efforts ramped back up in ~2018-ish or so.  And it's going full out right now.

But yeah, apart from a very rare exception, I'm not impressed with anything the left has said or done on the issue of 2A rights for a long time.  Except for the times when they hire their own private security, or sheepishly admit in hushed whispers that they own a gun but feel guilty using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real irony here?
 

Leftists will suddenly “back the blue”’ if they come for your guns, while conservatives who are generally far more pro cop will have to swallow a bitter pill and take off the Punisher logos they have on their pick up trucks. Fascinating how all those buzzwords work when gun confiscation begins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I gotta give a little friendly snark here.  I think much of you @Godless, so please don't take it personally.

[snark] Glad to see that you and maybe a dozen or so other left-leaning folks would have our back, as we stand against the hundreds of blue elected officials and the tens of millions of their constituents who have done everything they possibly could to erode the 2A, whenever they get the opportunity. [/snark] 

There's more of us than you think. It's hard to tell because 1) there are a lot of 2A-friendly leftists who support gun control measures that conservatives generally oppose, like universal background checks and red flag laws; 2) unlike some conservatives, leftist gun owners don't build their entire personality around gun ownership; and 3) Admittedly, the anti-gun liberal wing of the Democratic Party generally has more political clout and visibility than gun-friendly leftists.

I realize you were being snarky, but I felt like that needed to be said. 

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

In 2013, I lived through what I'd guess you call a "slightly-less-than-true" effort in blue democrat Colorado.  They were pushed into law by the emotionally charged Democrats, supported by an almost hysterical media.  Done against the staunch opposition of folks to the right.  To the right's credit, the ensuing political fallout made international news, and came within one recall election of turning the state legislature red.  The prospect of elected democrats having to run for their own seats in the middle of their term had a nationwide chilling effect on future gun control legislation for around 5 years.  But yeah, the left efforts ramped back up in ~2018-ish or so.  And it's going full out right now.

I assume you're talking about red flag laws here. I'll admit that I'm personally a bit conflicted on this. It's one of those things that looks like a good idea on paper, but is probably difficult to execute because of the ease of abuse of the law and conservative LEOs reluctant to enforce it. I hope a way is found to make those laws fraud-proof, but I'll be the first to confess that I don't know how that would be accomplished.

 

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

The real irony here?
 

Leftists will suddenly “back the blue”’ if they come for your guns, while conservatives who are generally far more pro cop will have to swallow a bitter pill and take off the Punisher logos they have on their pick up trucks. Fascinating how all those buzzwords work when gun confiscation begins. 

I'm sure Gerry Conway would love to see that.

3600.jpg?width=300&quality=45&auto=forma

Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
18 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Off topic- I always heard Romita Sr. was the guy behind the logo. That’s not true?

It might be. I think Conway created the character, but not the logo.

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

Looks like a ghost with his arms raised up over his head.

It... absolutely does and now I can't unsee it. 😳 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Godless said:

It might be. I think Conway created the character, but not the logo.

It... absolutely does and now I can't unsee it. 😳 

Do you think people on the left see the irony of chanting “defund cops” yet want an armed police force to confiscate guns? 
 

I’m convinced that many on the right fail to comprehend that “back the blue” along with “molon labe bro!!!” are inherently ridiculous. 
 

Both sides really do attract the same type of person. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
24 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Do you think people on the left see the irony of chanting “defund cops” yet want an armed police force to confiscate guns? 

 

I think there's a common misconception on the right about the "defund the police" movement. "Defund" doesn't mean abolish (though, yes, a minority of people on the left want to take it that far). It doesn't mean that there's no place for police in our society. It means that police are overused and overfunded. There's money in police budgets that could be used to grow the ranks of social workers and mental health crisis specialists (a field I'm considering looking into). There's also a growing movement to increase camera enforcement to reduce traffic stops, though I think that'll be an uphill battle in some states (a subcommunity in San Antonio installed red light cameras and less than a year later was told by a judge that they couldn't legally collect fines from them). 

Basically, there's a lot of work done by police than can and should be handled by other specialists. If we were to designate other agencies and social workers to address certain problems, then there's no reason why police departments couldn't operate on a smaller budget. THAT'S what "defund" means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

I think there's a common misconception on the right about the "defund the police" movement. "Defund" doesn't mean abolish (though, yes, a minority of people on the left want to take it that far). It doesn't mean that there's no place for police in our society. It means that police are overused and overfunded. There's money in police budgets that could be used to grow the ranks of social workers and mental health crisis specialists (a field I'm considering looking into). There's also a growing movement to increase camera enforcement to reduce traffic stops, though I think that'll be an uphill battle in some states (a subcommunity in San Antonio installed red light cameras and less than a year later was told by a judge that they couldn't legally collect fines from them). 

Basically, there's a lot of work done by police than can and should be handled by other specialists. If we were to designate other agencies and social workers to address certain problems, then there's no reason why police departments couldn't operate on a smaller budget. THAT'S what "defund" means.

That’s nice, and I basically agree with you.
 

However, here’s where differ. It’s a large, very vocal minority in your party that heavily influences the moderate-liberal wing. Think of then as MAGA for democrats. Not being humorous-it’s actually a good comparison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Godless said:

I think it's interesting that this thread is proceeding under an apparent assumption that all-out gun bans would only affect conservatives and that any true attempt to dismantle the 2A wouldn't have bipartisan opposition. Very interesting. 

Frankly, Godless?  I'm not at all confident that a gun-ban would be enforced in a politically even-handed way.

  • When the left occupies government buildings, it's "peaceful protest".  When the right walks into a government building because some (not all) surrounding cops said "go on in", it's insurrection.
  • When Mike Brown attacks a cop, it's the excusable venting of an oppressed young man (that cop was following him, doncha know?).  When Kyle Rittenhouse shoots a couple of guys who attacked him, it's "He shouldn't have had his gun there.  Everyone takes a beating sometimes, right?"
  • When Donald Trump's kids do or say something stupid or seem to be enjoying life a bit too much, it's front-page news for months.  When Hunter Biden appears to be neck-deep in multi-million dollar influence-peddling schemes (apparently with his father the VP being complicit in the whole sorry business), it's . . . a media blackout.

The general concept at play with gun regulation, I fear, is the phenomena Ayn Rand warned about:  You make everyone a criminal; you extend munificent mercy towards the ones who are useful to you, and you crack down on the rest. 

Additionally, on a less-theoretical level:  Progressive advocates have spent a lot of energy pathologizing/marginalizing mainstream conservatives, and have done so for a very long time (I came across an article sometime ago showing quotes of every Democratic presidential contender since Truman painting their Republican adversary as a fascist).  It's still a bit of a leap from "conservative" to "mentally ill" to "dangerous"--but not nearly as big of a leap as it used to be.  

2 hours ago, Godless said:

I think there's a common misconception on the right about the "defund the police" movement. "Defund" doesn't mean abolish (though, yes, a minority of people on the left want to take it that far). It doesn't mean that there's no place for police in our society. It means that police are overused and overfunded. There's money in police budgets that could be used to grow the ranks of social workers and mental health crisis specialists (a field I'm considering looking into). There's also a growing movement to increase camera enforcement to reduce traffic stops, though I think that'll be an uphill battle in some states (a subcommunity in San Antonio installed red light cameras and less than a year later was told by a judge that they couldn't legally collect fines from them). 

Basically, there's a lot of work done by police than can and should be handled by other specialists. If we were to designate other agencies and social workers to address certain problems, then there's no reason why police departments couldn't operate on a smaller budget. THAT'S what "defund" means.

(At the risk of threadjacking)

I'd be interested to hear the results of what you've looked into.  My impression hasn't been that there's really a lot of fat to trim in law enforcement budgets (they get some MRAPs and other stuff, but frankly, I believe a lot of that is gotten for near-free as military surplus).  And, being in a position where I work very closely with social workers (shared office space with social workers for two years)--the ones I know aren't particularly keen on going into tense situations without a police escort.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 It means that police are overused and overfunded. 

Yes and yes.  But overused probably not the way you are thinking/meaning.

 

Quote

There's money in police budgets that could be used to grow the ranks of social workers and mental health crisis specialists (a field I'm considering looking into).

Uh, no, we don't have money in our budgets for social workers nor do the ones who really have spent time on the streets with us really want the involvement the way so many on the left think.  

defund.jpg

 

Quote

There's also a growing movement to increase camera enforcement to reduce traffic stops, though I think that'll be an uphill battle in some states (a subcommunity in San Antonio installed red light cameras and less than a year later was told by a judge that they couldn't legally collect fines from them). 

At least in Utah, but I thought nation wide, they have been made illegal.

Quote

Basically, there's a lot of work done by police than can and should be handled by other specialists. If we were to designate other agencies and social workers to address certain problems, then there's no reason why police departments couldn't operate on a smaller budget. THAT'S what "defund" means.

Smaller budgets?  No, but yeah, there are things that the police get sent on that we should not be handling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Godless said:

I think there's a common misconception on the right about the "defund the police" movement. "Defund" doesn't mean abolish (though, yes, a minority of people on the left want to take it that far). It doesn't mean that there's no place for police in our society.

I'm genuinely curious.  Do the news sources you frequent talk about the skyrocketing crime rates in heavily Blue areas which have applied "defund the police" ideology?

Forget about definitions or percentages of people who want to completely abolish police.  How do you think the words "defund the police" have produced in reality?  What has been the practical resulting reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share