[Ibon]

I had to look it up on how to do it. First time in 12 years since I was a member here at peakoil.com that I actually put a poster on ignore. I never did that before. Cog just won that honor.

For all of you who choose to engage in this idiot, be aware that Cog's primary objective here is to bait people with his extreme ideological position. He has no and I mean ZERO interest or objective in dialogue, exchange of information, learning etc. His sole focus is to aggravate.

When he sees that he has pissed someone off like he did with me regarding the topic of racism he feels victorious. That is all he is interested in, agitating.

Why should we refrain or have any decorum with someone whose objective is toxic. He is an asshole. Period.

[Outcast_Searcher]

As to the Vegas shooter, we have 330,000,000 people in the USA, What are the chances that at least one of them is nuts enough to do this? Think about your high school class, any nutters in that crowd?

Vegas is just statistics. Sad and horrible, but extremely hard to eradicate.

But yet the Democrats in Congress think that if they could seize and melt every gun in America they could save us all from all harm.
Unfortunately the criminals on the street and the foreign governments of the world don't see any reason to be nice if all the guns were gone and would move on unarmed Americans as soon as they were rendered defenseless.

Not only that, but I'm pretty sure that a LOT of otherwise honest gun owners would refuse to give them up voluntarily. In rural America, they could hide them (i.e. buried out in the fields), for example.

Meanwhile the NYT is full of liberal editorials (and comments on gun editorials) claiming that now is the time to repeal the 2nd amendment, and/or take all the guns. As if the states, the majority of which are red, would EVER ratify that.

Meanwhile, IMO, there aren't enough voices for trying for some kind of reasonable compromise.

Do ordinary citizens really need bump stocks and machine guns in 99%+ of cases? Those two items would be a great please to start, if you actually wanted to minimize tragedies like this. Special permits could always be used for legitimate needs, if any.

By pushing for the 2nd Amendment repeal, all the liberals do is encourage folks like me who only want to be able to defend my home -- IN my home, from violent intruders, to go out and buy all the guns I think I might want, like a Glock semi-auto pistol, a pump shot gun, etc., in addition to what I have now. Mostly as a matter of principle.

[Cog]

While it might be understandable for non-Americans to not have a clue as to why we have a Second Amendment, you American citizens disgust me. The Founders wrote extensively as to why its is there and the purpose of it. I don't even consider you my fellow country-men at this point, because of your self-imposed ignorance. If you think this is about bump fire, then you are a retard.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”--Samuel Adams

I can't ignore a moderator and I'm pretty sure he can't ignore a user. But if I don't have to listen to the leftist blather of Ibon in response to one of my posts, then I'm all for it.

[Outcast_Searcher]

For all of you who choose to engage in this idiot, be aware that Cog's primary objective here is to bait people with his extreme ideological position. He has no and I mean ZERO interest or objective in dialogue, exchange of information, learning etc.

I agree that he seems to have ZERO interest in any sort of reasonable compromise on gun ownership in the US. Which puts him in the same camp, IMO, as the idiot liberals who think it's reasonable to insist on full 2nd amendment repeal, and confiscation of ALL guns from citizens. They're seriously trying for this, in droves, per the NYT site, as one example.

I generally back Cog on his opinions on many issues, even if I don't agree fully with them, as I can see his point, or the validity of the argument.

So to me his attitude re gun ownership is disappointing -- and not at ALL helpful to the cause of trying to come up with some sort of rational solution which would be acceptable to anyone willing to be even moderately reasonable.

Which IMO, we need on all important issues over time, to function well as a democracy.

[Cog]

Compromise means I get something. What are you offering me in exchange for bump-fire stocks Outcast? Think hard now and I will give you and Nancy Pelosi all the time in the world to offer me something. Oh, you don't want to give me anything? What a huge surprise that is. LOL

[Outcast_Searcher]

Nobody is talking about banning semiautos or any other weapons.

Yes, they are. On the NYT editorial pages in recent days, there are LOTS of editorials and MANY comments where liberals are pushing for a full repeal of the second amendment. There are plenty of comments of confiscating all guns by mandatory turn in procedures -- and then going house to house and finding and taking any guns -- and putting the people who didn't turn them in, into prison.

Please stop using these all inclusive statements like "no one". It's not helpful when it's clearly not true.

I'll agree that no one reasonable is doing that, as it's a completely unrealistic/unreasonable position given the US's culture re guns. Sadly, as Cog is pointing out for the pro-gun side, this is an emotional subject, where reason is all-too-often, left behind.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Compromise means I get something. What are you offering me in exchange for bump-fire stocks Outcast? Think hard now and I will give you and Nancy Pelosi all the time in the world to offer me something. Oh, you don't want to give me anything? What a huge surprise that is. LOL

Since you refuse to even try to justify why you or any ordinary citizen NEEDS bump stocks, why should I offer you anything? As a gun owner who badly wants to be able to defend myself in my own home, I'm self-interested in some form of reasonable outcome here. Not NJ or DC type draconian gun laws the first chance some far left POTUS/Administration gets.

And all arguments like yours (without reason) are doing is adding fuel to those who are afraid of guns and gun owners. Not that I'd expect you to ever see that.

You've made this same argument over and over, over time. Sorry, but I don't think it's valid. If you can't tell me why you should be able to have bump stocks or nukes or tanks or machine guns, etc, then I have no sympathy for you if you can't legally have those.

[Newfie]

Ibon,

I think Cogs arguments, and challenges he shies away from, help him speak elegantly for his position.

We should respect that, mostly, he mans up to his position, no matter how unpopular.

Then we can thrash out the true pros and cons. Remember there are about 10 lurkers for every poster. They are our broader audience.

I deeply disagree with Cog on some issues, but not all. He has a good intellect, even though at times (IMHO) he has logical breaks. And his trolls are ingeniously designed to push emotional buttons. Frankly he could be a more formidable poster if he could restrain his desire to kick people in the teeth. Maybe even pretend to recognize compashion once in a while.

At worst Cog is allowing us into HIS mind allows us to examine portions of OUR mind we keep in the closet.

It's pretty obvious that his arguments on this topic are falling apart. I'm sure that is not a nice feeling for him. It is attacking his core belief system, he will fight back like a cornered rat.

He will not come around easily, if ever. Such is life.

[Newfie]

Cog,

No limits?

Cog,

50 cal and over?
Bazookas?
Shoulder launched air to air missiles?
Personal tanks?
Fully armed F-16s?

[onlooker]

Responding to Kaiser's thoughts and those of others. Are we now not seeing why certain issues gain no headway for the overall public good. Same as Immigration reform, same as Healtcare reform, Illegal drugs reform etc. Because we are stuck in this ideological rut in which people refuse to budge. And politicians are only to happy to cater to these set positions. Yes, the medical profession is doing a disservice to this country by not allowing certain info to be obtained by Law enforcement. And so, we continue with illegal people who live in the shadows, we continue with outrageously expensive healthcare, we continue with a revolving door of addicts/criminals going in and out of jail and we continue with nutters having readily accessible access to very lethal firearms. So our entire political/economic/social system reflects mutually the dysfunctional nature of us humans in not working together for the common good and the System just aggravating these inherent tendencies

[KaiserJeep]

I actually don't care if they ban bump stocks or not, since there is no legitimate use for them.

Nor does it matter. The ban won't stop their manufacture, import, use, or purchase by anyone - because gun control laws largely exist with zero enforcement, because the average US citizen does not want them enforced.

The prohibition against machine guns is one such unenforced law. True, one cannot purchase a machine gun directly from a factory unless you have a Federal Firearms License, and pay a transfer tax every time you sell of give that full auto weapon to another.

However, nothing prevents you from buying a set of parts to convert a legal AR-15 type semi-auto so that the normal selector has an unmarked 3rd position for full auto fire. When they tried to "close the gun show loophole" on such kits, the people selling them started to sell instructions seperately, quoting the 1st Amendment, as it was just a document. Then they would tell you where to buy the parts from somebody else, simply an anonymous box of AR parts with no instructions or stated purpose. Those gun shows are in California, no less.

No, I don't own an AR type weapon, nor have any plans to own such. But I cannot stand idiots who think gun control laws are good for anything except annoying the law abiding citizens. They certainly don't deter criminals or the mentally ill.

[Newfie]

According to this site only 21% of Federal felons got their guns through legitimate channels.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/susanbarsy ... -cars/amp/

[Plantagenet]

I actually don't care if they ban bump stocks or not, since there is no legitimate use for them.

Nor does it matter. The ban won't stop their manufacture, import, use, or purchase by anyone - because gun control laws largely exist with zero enforcement, because the average US citizen does not want them nothing prevents you from buying a set of parts......

Making something illegal always discourages it.

The Obama administration made a dumb mistake by issuing new regulations permitting “bump stocks”. Hopefully the Trump administration will reverse this dumb Obama era regulation as they have reversed others.

And if the Trumpies won’t do it the I hope Congress steps in and outlaws bump stocks

Even the NRA has called for re/regulation of Bump stocks

Cheers!

[Cog]

Cog,

No limits?

Cog,

50 cal and over?
Bazookas?
Shoulder launched air to air missiles?
Personal tanks?
Fully armed F-16s?

The Founders were heavily influenced by the philosopher John Locke from which the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were derived. The basic concept is that of self-ownership. Meaning, that you have the right as a human to protect yourself. Such a right does not derive or is established by government but is inherent in being a human being. A gift from God if you are religiously bent, but can be derived by an atheist who believes in the value of humans.

Most people in the world recognize the right of owning oneself and asserting that right to prevent others from doing you harm. The most efficient way to assert that right is by use of a weapon. The Founders did not specify the type of weapon to be used for self-defense of oneself and by extension the community at large. Arms were understood as those arms that could be employed by an individual in defense of an individual or in the case of a group of individuals in an ad hoc militia. Defense of the community or nation if you will.

My right to self-defense or of that of my group or community must have discretion though. I can create no greater harm to other innocents through my use of my right to self-defense. The use of chemical, nuclear, or area weapons such as a B-2 bomber would not follow under the category of all human rights being of the same equality. Such weapons do not discriminate between the guilty and the non-guilty. With respect to the intent of the Second Amendment and my personal beliefs about defense of one self, any weapon capable of being employed by an individual and whose use targets only those who would usurp my rights to self, would be protected.

People always bring up nuclear weapons or bombers when they want to infringe on some individual right by the use of the extreme case.

[evilgenius]

Like I said, why not have a registry. It doesn't have to include anything that a reasonable person would consider as standard. So, most guns wouldn't be on it. If somebody got a permit for a special gun, they would go on it. If they kept things like bump stocks legal, a person buying one would go on it. Those sketchy types of guns, like AR-15's would go on it. Why not, since the debate about those is still going on?

The thing the controlling body would want to do is make sure it didn't actually cost the buyers of those things any money, or other consideration. They wouldn't want to take anything from them, or it might be construed as an infringement. Otherwise, the government would not be prohibiting the purchase of any of those things. What they would be doing is letting the rest of us know if there was a person down the street who had something out of the ordinary.

It occurred to me that it might be wise to also flag people who owned an unusual amount of guns. The more I thought about that, the more I figured it may be too problematic. It is doable, but the government would have to track all gun transactions, keeping a list of the number of guns a person, or household, owned. If they went over that limit, then they would get flagged. Yeah, the black market might light up, but one couldn't unload a gun one officially owned on the black market. They would have to sell officially owned guns in some kind of registered way, or to a buyback program. And, if all of the easy ways to purchase guns were a part of the program, it would be hard to avoid it. I'm uncertain about the import of this, however. People could make an argument against it based upon their Second Amendment rights. But if this too didn't cost gun buyers anything, that argument might not hold up because the registry that keeps the tally would not be public and there would be nothing about it that infringed, other than to make people wary of something in their imaginations.

It's really just the same concept as those radar speed signs at the sides of roads where the local government recognizes there is a problem with speeding. Those actually work, by showing people objectively what they are doing.

[Cog]

Wouldn't a shoulder launched missile be ground to air instead of air to air?

[evilgenius]

The alternative, of course, to an official registry would be a private one. The era of big data is here. Imagine some rich guy like Elon Musk or, even worse, Mark Zuckerberg funding and facilitating one. They could call it, unofficially, the dangerous ass-jack registry. Just imagine the irony of the call coming, desperately, from the vast host of gun owners for an official registry, who wanted to say, "Look I'm not on the official registry. I'm no danger." It's all about property values. You can use them to control people, in the best interest of society. Yeah, you could say a registry was an infringement based upon property values, but, ultimately, those are based upon the market. It could be equally said that the lack of said information skews, and always has skewed, the housing market in the wrong direction.

[evilgenius]

"You can't discriminate against me and not hire me or rent me an apartment based upon my gun ownership!" That will be the call. But those people trying to defend themselves that way will have a hard time with that argument, when it is permissible to discriminate against a person in terms of those things based upon their sexual orientation.

[ROCKMAN]

Outcast - "There are plenty of comments of confiscating all guns by mandatory turn in procedures". Which will, as happened during President Obama's administration, produce a surge in weapon sales and stock values of the manufacturers.

For instance Smith and Wesson: a Repub gets elected and the stock falls significantly from when we had an anti "gun" POTUS. And now after Vegas: "That price was still up 51 cents a share, or 3.34 percent, from the day's opening price. It is still well under the $26.28 a share the stock sold for one year ago, in October 2016."

And in general:

"Gun stocks rose Monday following the deadliest mass shooting in American history late Sunday night. A gunman in a hotel room at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas killed at least 58 people attending an outdoor concert and wounded over 500 more.

Shares of Sturm Ruger (RGR) were up 4%, while American Outdoor Brands (AOBC), the company formerly known as Smith & Wesson, gained more than 3%. A company named Olin (OLN), which owns the Winchester brand of ammunition, rose 6% to an all-time high."