This is a discussion on My vote for stupidest comments from today's Senate hearings within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by bklynboy 1) Al Franken argues that pistols grips, adjustable stocks and barrel shrouds make semi auto rifles more lethal and James Johnson ...
Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunder bolt...... Sun Tzu.
The supreme art of war is to defeat the enemy without fighting........ Sun Tzu.
Al Franken still isn't funny, and never was.
Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth
The young lady who testifed against gun control and was an advocate for women. I forgot her name. Anyway, she was on MSNBC's Last Word with Lawerence O'Donnell tonight. He really didn't let her speak. He kept asking over and over, "Give me ONE, just ONE instance where anyone has used an AR-15 for self-defense." She was ill-prepared, she didn't have any. As we all Know, there are plenty. I wanted to crawl through the TV...One of the anti cops that testified today was also on. He said that just by having any gun in the home the chances of someone in the home being shot go up 500%!!! Sheesh....
SOLD my guns.
Proud owner of a 12lb. Chinese pug that is DANGEROUS and is soon to be registered!
I thought "Congress is now in session" was just the first in an ongoing string of mounting idiocy that only terminates with the closing gavel...
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."
- Roy Batty
My vote for the stupidest comment is LaPierre saying that background checks won't keep criminals from getting guns. While some criminals and potential criminals will get guns anyway, not all will. I see universal background checks with appropriate exemptions for sales or gifts to family, as a reasonable step to deter or prevent easy access. The notion that a background check is tantamount to registration is a scare tactic. To have a background check it should not even be necessary to identify the firearm--just the person buying it.
keboostman, how would that be enforced? Also I could be wrong but "universal background checks" sounds like they mean on everyone, no one in the hearings said anything about exemptions. As a matter of point the Chief from Baltimore said "you think you know your neighbor? You don't know your neighbor"
To me that indicates a thought process that we are not qualified to judge when we should seek an exemption to a universal background check even if one was available!
Remember, Al Franken is a comedian...he's a joke!
Duty, Honor, Country...MEDIC!!!
¡Cuánto duele crecer, cuan hondo es el dolor de alzarse en puntillas y observar con temblores de angustia, esa cosa tremenda, que es la vida del hombre! - René Marqués
I don't entirely disagree that it's not a bad idea. But ,and it's a big Butt, how could this be enforced?? Also I agree there could be exemptions, as you suggested. But , and it's another big Butt, they anti's are not stipulating for any exemptions. They are already stating that any guns banned cannot be passed down to relatives do you really think they would allow exemptions for relatives?
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
William T. Sherman
Granted some of those testifying made comments that are anti-gun but one needs to understand the following:
* Firearm(s) owners are a minority
* Hunters are a minority within that minority
* Those that advocate, literally, the language in the 2nd amendment are a minority with the two above minorities
* Many Americans believe what someone in authority says as truth and give it no further thought
* Many Americans will go along with anything one of their "heroes" advocate(movie/music stars, sports players, etc.)
* Many Americans believe what the various news media outlets "feed" them
Basically, we have one hell of an uphill battle on our hands.
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
--Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney
Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."
Universal Background Check is not a form of registration.My vote for stupidest comments from today's Senate hearings
"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper
"Terrorists: They hated you yesterday, they hate you today, and they will hate you tomorrow. End the cycle of hatred, don’t give them a tomorrow."
Hey, everybody knows real life is just like Cowadooty (Call of Duty.) If you put a red dot and a foregrip on a .223 AR it'll be almost 17 times as deadly as an M14 chambered in .308 by virtue of the 2 pistol grips accelerating the bullet an average of 422,000 feet per second faster, while adding deadly expanding abilities to the projectile. The red dot site also gives the weapon both soft and hard armor penetration capabilities. Then there's those shoulder things that go up...
In the sense that greater accuracy will tend to result in greater likelihood of deaths/injuries than poorer accuracy, he's got a point. But then, so will practice. Perhaps the liberty-haters should attempt to ban practice??1) Al Franken argues that pistols grips, adjustable stocks and barrel shrouds make semi auto rifles more lethal
It's an attempt to grasp at straws, IMO. A firearm's pretty useless if one can't hold onto it. EVERY rifle ever made, that I can think of, has someplace to put the rear hand and someplace to put the forward hand; protections from getting burned on the barrel is just basic; and adjustable stocks provide fitment for various sizes of people.
Which brings us to the whole point: a firearm's pretty useless if one can't hold onto it. IMO, it seems that this is what they're seeking ... to make firearms effectively useless for those who have them, since they are disallowed from outright elimination of them.
Thinking it through, there are all sorts of ways the liberty-haters could effectively ban things without banning them. Attack the features, capabilities. And that's just what they're doing. "Common-sense" and "reasonable" actions to take, for people barred from outright bans.
Well, yeah, in terms of accuracy when feedback/confirmation is available, as with tracer rounds during machine gun fire in combat. Sure, in terms of raising the likelihood that a person's going to get/remain on target. The same can be said for having sights at all, as opposed to just an unadorned barrel.modern optics make AR's so much more lethal
In a way, it's a bit like saying that barrels make a rifle more lethal, a butt stock at all makes a rifle more lethal, and the ability to load projectiles makes a rifle more lethal. Well, yeah, since without the ability to be a firearm, it wouldn't be as lethal as a firearm. Circle logic for circle jerks. Wow.
Yup. If not from that dealer, then from someone he knows. It's not that difficult to find weapons or drugs on the street. (Have got a couple of relatives that don't have much trouble, in this regard.) All it takes is a couple discreet questions, and boom! you're put in contact with the "right" sort who can get you what you need. After all, kids, for crying out loud, can get this stuff on the street, so it's not as though an adult is going to be having much trouble doing so given a bit of effort.(A "druggie") probably could have gotten a package deal straight from his drug dealer: Meth and a Glock 19
I wonder if these people have ever tried thinking through the arguments. (We know they're seeing right through them, not understanding what they're saying.) One would think LE could smell a rat, with regard to how it really is on the street. And as for considering basic elements of a firearm that make it such a thing (a "firearm," a flinger of projectiles as accurately as can be), it's hard to call it anything but what it is: no argument at all.
The similarly weak and pointless "car" argument: Tires, steering wheels and adjustable seats help make cars more accurate and able to be used by far more people. Adjustable seats are particularly pernicious, allowing anyone to sit behind a wheel. Horrible! Such features as these help those who would aim their cars at innocents commit horrible crimes (DUI, reckless driving, running down children in crosswalks). These common-sense and reasonable restrictions are what is needed to turn cars into the soft, comfortable, de-weaponized "weapons" they are. Ban tires, wheels, adjustable seats!