DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress

At least 9 children stabbed to death at Chinese middle school

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/asia/china-middle-school-knife-killings/

(CNN)At least nine students were killed and nearly a dozen injured in a knife attack Friday evening at a middle school in Shaanxi province, China, according to the state-run Xinhua news agency.
A male suspect was arrested by police, and an investigation is ongoing, Xinhua reported, citing local government officials. The victims included seven female and two male students.


Knife attacks at schools in China are common. Last year, a man climbed over the wall of a kindergarten and attacked 11 students. None suffered life-threatening injuries.
In 2016, a man in the southern province of Hainan stabbed 10 children before killing himself, authorities said. And another man killed three students at a school in 2014 before jumping off a building.

Perhaps the worst spate of stabbings occurred in 2010, when attackers targeted schools on three consecutive days. China's Ministry of Education responded by ordering schools to beef up security and to bar strangers from campuses.

China also began requiring people to register with the government when buying large knives.

What exactly is the point that you are trying to make here?

I think the point he is making is quite clear...

Guns and Knives Don't Kill People, People Kill People.

'China also began requiring people to register with the government when buying large knives."

Funny, I was a little more focused on this... A government imposed corrective action, on knives...

Why Is China’s Xi Cracking Down on Free Speech?

http://www.newsweek.com/why-chinas-xi-cracking-down-free-speech-606109

Under President Xi Jinping, who advocates globalization but has cracked down on the free flow of information, China has become less free.

China is ranked 176 out of 180 countries, just a few notches above North Korea—and President Xi is referred to as “the planet’s leading censor and press freedom predator.” In preparation for the 19th CCP Congress later this year, there has been an uptick in the war on free speech.

I see your point of government control.

When the CCP Congress meets, they even shut down WhatsApp on the mainland...

This is a good thing as it is not like over here where people say things I don't want to hear and Clem can post his silly pictures from inside a Gulag.

Not only is this gibberish and barely English, but it's an attempt from the the board's least respected member to go after the board's most respected member.

Could you explain what you find humorous about that?

If you honestly believe that Clem isn't the most respected poster on this board it explains a lot. Not that everyone always agrees with him, but he puts forth valid and well thought out posts.

Not gibberish, party insider punch lines and youtube videos.

I'm curious to hear his response.

Clem is clearly far and away the most respected member of the board, and has been for over a decade . I'm looking forward to hearing the reasoning behind the "why is everyone laughing at me from posting a Breitbart link?" guy explaining his differing opinion.

Shunned by corporations, U.S. gun entrepreneurs launch start-ups

While much of corporate America has turned its back on firearms-related business following mass shootings such as the Feb. 14 massacre at a high school in Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 people, pro-gun entrepreneurs are creating their own start-ups to fill the void.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/shunned-by-corporations-u-s-gun-entrepreneurs-launch-start-ups

Good old American ingenuity.

Anytime 40 gets embarrassed, his go-to is posting a FOX News link, followed by either a thumbs up or a tsk-tsk emoji.

Yea... that's exactly what I would do... start a business in a highly volatile sector that is in a downward spiral...

But, there is light at the end of the tunnel.. I'm sure that the Donald will give them the number for a few bankruptcy lawers... he has them on retainer as well...

No, it is not exactly what you would do.

Lairdawg is officially one of my new favorite posters. I like how quick he is with the quips. The resistance force is strong with this one. Unlike those he opposes who are masters of the farce.

May the farce be with you?

Question for the Pro-2A group. Should US citizens be allowed to 3d print guns?

Does an individual need a license to make a firearm for personal use?

No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use. However, a license is required to manufacture firearms for sale or distribution. The law prohibits a person from assembling a non–sporting semiautomatic rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as well as firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or x–ray machines. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF.

[18 U.S.C. 922(o), (p) and (r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]

I love this lady ...

Even if such BS becomes law, I won't be enforcing it. I sure as hell wouldn't turn in anything i may own, there's no reason i should expect or force someone else to.

What's interesting is that those who think tbis idea has merit are the same ones who have no problem likening me and my profession in general as Klan, oppressive occupiers, nazis, etc...

And you guys want people like that to enforce a law that ultimately would require those kinds of tactics?

Is it ignorance, or are you guys simply useful idiots?

BTW, i think we can officially put an end to the "naw, no one wants to confiscate your guns..." Lie

Odd, I’m the only one on this board who ever calls you names like that, yet I just went though this thread, and don’t see where I came out in support of this bill.

You may have been one to sag those things directly, but plenty of others have said as much indirectly and/or implicitly.

And yes, i did notice you didn't express support for this bill. Your response in fact was one i think is a good one for a decent conversation. What i would have a hard time agreeing with though is the sentiment out there that it's the responsibility of the 2A crowd to "give something up". I don't see how giving up my AR15 is supposed to prevent something from happening somewhere. I don't understand how my name in 442's gun registry iz supposed to prevent something from happening somewhere. It may give us someone to throw in jail after the fact, but its not like we've had any problems figuring out how/where these guys have gotten their guns.


I'm willing to entertain things like strengthening background checks, but I've got some serious concerns. I have yet to find anyone who has thought the idea through enough to at least address those concerns if not convince me.


I apologise if my first post is rather testy... Tbis Dunkin coffee isn't cutting it this morning

Maybe his is too intrusive on the 2nd amendment, but I dunno if it’s even about giving up the 15 so much as the better idea would be to just stop the production of military style weapons?

I could see something like that going over a lot better than telling people to turn in their rifles.

And dude I make testy post sober all the time. Nothing to apologize for.

J/C

I find it funny, that those who call police Nazis and murderers are the ones who want ONLY the police to be armed.......makes sense

Hmm... reduce firearms through attrition? That's an interesting idea and probably one of the more unique ideas I've heard. It also takes advantage of the mind set many people have of "well, i already got mine"

It would make for an interesting legal case. I wouldn't be surprised if the govt cited it's charter to regulate trade as its authority.

I guess the bigger argument is in how the word "style" is defined. Would it be based on cosmetics, or mechanical function?

It's definitely an interesting concept.

i had to look up the word 'attrition', lol.

anyway, i think that would be a better idea worth exploring.

but again, remember who it is that brought up that idea; i also am in the opinion that certain style of weapons have a psychological factor to their purchases. i know a lot of people disagree with that.

when you bring up cosmetics vs mechanical function, thats where my idea will get truly tested.

there's a lot of people out there who probably aren't aware that there are pump action rifles. only gun enthusiast or military people/law enforcement would be aware of that, in general.

hell, a lot of people dont even know the different rifle actions or style of rifle. people too often think about rifles as being exclusively semi-auto or bolt action.

so in regards to the AR 15, we're talking semi auto. well, with that style of rifle, there are a crap ton of semi auto rifles on the market, not just AR 15. so in my scenario, stopping the production of semi-auto rifles will take a lot of models off the market, allows people to not only keep their semi auto's that they already purchased, but also allows the gun stores to sell the rest of their semi-auto rifles and not turn them in.

the 2nd amendment allows us to bare arms. however, it doesn't allow us to own whatever weapon we choose.

legally speaking, a good team of lawyers would win that case.

I think you are starting to run in to the same problem that many other suggestions for gum control ideas run in to: where does it stop?

Like you said, if you are talking about the action, yes, you'd then half to include many other rifles. And if semi-auto is the defining factor, it would then follow that handguns would have to make the list as well. Consider bow many people carry/buy semi-auto pistols... I'd think its the majority of what's out there.

And I know the "what ifs" could take us down any number of rabbit holes but i would think the more types of guns that get included it makes it more difficult to sell people on the ideas of "common sense" and "reasonable".

You make a great point about how few people actually know the basics about firearms and how they work. This is why for me, most often gun control legislation is a non-starter for me because the mankrity of these proposed laws are written and submitted by people who have zero clue. It makes it very easy for 2A supporters to just say No and not budge.

i agree, its a rabbit hole that will often lead to unproductive discussions.

however, i think in this case we are indeed talking about rifles. so thats where it stops: rifles.

the government, imo, wouldnt be able to make a remotely solid case against semi auto pistols/handguns because those are the most common weapon of choice for anything. its the most popular weapon and the easiest to conceal carry and defend your home with, other than a shotgun for home defense.

but rifles, especially military style rifles which are most often semi auto, thats a way easier case to make with regards to halting production.

so when it comes to halting production on military style, semi auto rifles, its still broad but certainly more specific than "lets ban rifles".

Great plan. Of coarse all the cold dead hands have no plans.

For me, it stops when we have done objectively the best we feel is possible to keep guns out of the hands of bad people while also allowing rational people the opportunity for gun ownership. Unfortunately we have a lobbying group intent on tearing down as many restrictions as possible to maximize gun profits, and they pay very well into a political party that is willing to enact these measures, whether it's by roadblocking changes or repealing existing ones.

For me it's permits and licensing. We should require licensure for firearm ownership. They are serious pieces of equipment and should be respected as such. Out of the 10 states with the least firearm deaths per capita, 9 require handgun permits source .

The Massachusetts system is very robust, and they have a great system in place to allow people the opportunity to own a gun. They also have the lowest firearm death rate by a reasonable margin. Their system is licensing/permit, and an interview with your local sheriff. I love the interview idea as this makes the ownership a local issue, not a statewide one. No system is perfect but I really like the balance they are showing here, and it's something we should consider in other states and municipalities. It's hard to argue with their results.

I think Vambo is jealous that he isn't the board's least respected member just yet.

Good points, but i actually think that the govt would have a stronger argument against handguns because its handguns used far and away more often in crimes than rifles. I'm on my phone today so im SOL for links, but IIRC its something like less than 3% of all gun related crimes are committed w/ a rifle.

Now having said that, clearly rifles related incidents get the headlines and the incident casualty rate tends to be higher.

The question is: are we implementing measures in hopes of preventing specific incidents, or to reduce gun related crimes as a whole? I don't think we should assume one will necessarily impact the other (not to say that you are).


Even though I'm not sold, i do appreciate that you are still kicking it around trying to work out the kinks instead of presenting it as a finished product garunteed to fix things.

i agree and i've seen the stats that say the majority of crimes committed with weapons are with handguns.

i think when it comes to mass shootings, at least in the last 10-15 years, military style weapons have been the overwhelming majority of the mass shootings in our schools.

and again, the counter to the government's argument is how completely versatile handguns are. its used from everything from personal defense to protecting the president.

this hypothetical bill would hypothetically cover both preventing specific incidents and reducing gun related crimes.

sure, an increase demand into other style of weapons might increase, but as someone who believes in the psychological aspect of why people choose certain style of guns, i think it would indeed reduce overall gun crime.

reduces gun crime by having less guns on the streets/stores, and also helps to prevent the "inspiration" and mass murdering idea with regards to specific crimes.

the problem is that even if this bill worked in theory, it would never be passed, simply because that many style of semi auto rifles being banned from production would bankrupt some stores and gun making companies.

the NRA would never allow it to happen, and they have too many puppets in government for something meaningful to ever happen like that.

Look, I am well aware that my stance on gun control is pretty severe and way too absolute, but let it be known that I'm willing to compromise. I am willing to listen to any and all ideas that will help prevent mass shootings, especially school shootings. Whether those ideas include bans, stronger background checks, longer waiting periods, mental health background checks, stopping mass productive of military style weapons, or other legislation.

I just want some sort of effort put in that could make a difference. And I don't see the harm in that.

However when I've asked some of our conservative posters to come up with some ideas to prevent more mass shootings, the responses I've gotten are:

"Do nothing! I will make no compromise on my 2A rights"
"My right to own a gun is a god-given right"
"We don't need to do anything, the current laws we have don't work so why make more?"
"Everything is fine"

So yeah my plans are harsh, but no one is willing to even have a discussion on compromise.

Perhaps it's because your idea of "compromise" is: Ban this today, and ban the rest tomorrow?

Not true at all. I've asked for what yours and others ideas to help protect against mass shootings, specifically school shootings. And all I've received is statements like I posted earlier.

I've asked for others ideas and compromises in a serious tone yet received nothing. Don't assume I'm all "Ban or nothing!" Just because I want a ban, does mean I'm against doing something that has a chance for a positive effect.

Obviously this is the challenge.. if you do something partial and over the next year there is no significant change.. then the right will say, "See, we told you it wasn't going to work".. and the left will say, "It will work but we have to do more."

It's never really going to go away.