Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

OT: Summary of the Legislation on the 2013 Assault Weapons Ban


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 220 posts in this discussion
Posted on Dec 27, 2012 11:04:22 AM PST
This topic makes me want to say "DEY TURK ER JERBS!" even though I don't think its really relevant to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:06:00 AM PST
Agreed, these are some pretty draconian restrictions on firearms that are only going to create a massive panic in the firearms community (more than it already has) and also create a very large black market for these weapons once or if it goes into effect; and I say that as a Californian. We already have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. I can't imagine how many of these AR-15 style rifles are already in circulation, but this is going to be a royal clusterbonk trying to deal with and control them.

In any case, going by just the summary (the site is blocked at my work) and full disclosure, yes I do own guns, but not an AR-15:

-Banning Bullet Button devices and Thumbhole stocks - Not sure how this is going to solve anything. Banning a device just because it has the POTENTIAL for circumvention or modification will not stand up in a court fight. The last time this was attempted here in California, it didn't even make out of committee (SB249 if I recall). Previous court cases dealing with potential mis-use of a device (tape cassette and VCRs for example) were already ruled as not bannable just because of what someone "might" do with the device. Thumbhole stocks simply make the weapon more stable when shooting, which I would imagine someone would want to have to begin with.

Banning Bayonet Mounts or Flash Supressors - Once again, not sure how this will make weapons safer. Bayonet mounts I kinda understand, there's not a whole lot of practical civilian use for a bayonet, even as a hunter. But this will mainly affect the milsurp market I believe. A lot of imported SKS and other Eastern Bloc milsurp stuff has bayonet/flash supressor mounts already hard-installed on the gun, making this a carte blanch ban on these rifles even if they meet other requirements.

Banning Hi-Cap Magazines - This one I disagree with but not for the usual reasons. With anything you do, the more you practice with something, the more familiar you get with it. The same applies with shooting. Having to stop and reload every 5 to 10 rounds interrupts the, I guess for lack of a better phrase, "flow" of shooting. It makes consistent practice slower and less effective because you're constantly stopping to reload your magazines and tiring out your hands from the constant pressing of bullets into the magazine. I would much rather have more opportunities to become a better, more accurate, and overall safer shooter by becoming more familiar with my weapon's behavior than getting acquainted with my UpLula mag-loader.

Expanded Background Checks - I'm personally fine with this as it is important that we determine if someone is truly safe to own and house a gun in their premises. I am sad to see that this bill does nothing, and nothing has been mentioned in congress about expanding or overhauling mental health services in this country. I commented about this in the original shooting post, but I find it disgusting that if a person does not have the means to support private full time mental health care for someone in their family who is a major threat to them, then the only recourse they have is to let them commit a crime, get processed by the criminal justice system and hope a judge sentences them to a long term mental care facility. That simply has to change.

I am by all accounts a fairly liberal person politically, but this new legislation just reeks of knee-jerk emotional policymaking. If we want to reduce occurrences like this from happening (we'll never fully prevent them) then providing better mental health services and making sure people buying guns have the proper means to use and secure them are more proactive methods that will lead to better results down the line.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:14:49 AM PST
Voice of god says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:16:23 AM PST
We should get that tech in Skyfall where all the guns are set to only fire with your own palm print.

Go go gadget future!

Posted on Dec 27, 2012 11:16:34 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 27, 2012 11:22:12 AM PST
I'm all for this.

Also - We need to register all forks and spoons for lending to the massive amount of deaths (more than guns) each year resulting from obesity. We should also probably limit the size/capacity of them. All previous forks would obviously be grandfathered, you just need to provide a birth certificate, blood sample, a hair off of every person's head in your household, fingerprints, toe prints, as well as your last 10 mortgage statements.

Fireworks can be deadly as well so they should be registered...Chainsaws....

...Can you guys think of anything else that can kill someone which should be registered? I'm so frightened of all these inanimate objects which kill people!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:17:00 AM PST
MrFoxhound says:
My point was to refute that a gun safe would have prevented this psycho from getting those guns. And acting like the world would be a safer place with gun safes is just as much fallacy.

Posted on Dec 27, 2012 11:18:07 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 27, 2012 11:18:47 AM PST
Anthony says:
*Sighs* here we go again.

Posted on Dec 27, 2012 11:18:15 AM PST
JJ4prez says:
It's funny how all this talk about guns, but cigarettes kills what, 1 billion people a year?

Those are still around.

Posted on Dec 27, 2012 11:18:24 AM PST
It just looks like a policy for show that doesn't really fix anything.

A couple things I see that will turn law abiding citizens into instant criminals are the fingerprinting for previously registered firearms as well as paying the ATF/local LE "fees" to be certified, inspected and registered into a database that just reeks of being abused regularly to harass people.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:18:33 AM PST
I doubt a safe would've stopped Lanza. Didn't his mother teach him how to shoot? I'm sure he knew exactly where the safe key was.

I knew exactly where my parents gun safe key was growing up after age 10 and knew how to work every single rifle in the house.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:19:07 AM PST
Wrong, I think obesity is caused more by foods on sticks (corn dogs, fried everything) than anything I can eat with a fork or spoon.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:19:37 AM PST
MrFoxhound says:
But, but, caramel covered apples!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:20:25 AM PST
MrFoxhound says:
Ladders. The last thread said that more people die falling off of ladders than due to gun violence, so ladders, definitely. Oh, and people should be registered because people kill a lot of people.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:20:42 AM PST
Not really an apt comparison. Smoking hurts yourself and because of the potential damage of 2nd hand smoke it was banned from a lot of indoor areas. It's taxed like a mofo.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:21:06 AM PST
And cars, those kill a ton of people! We should register all cars!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:21:35 AM PST
Thank you Mogwai, foods on sticks have been added to the list.

Pretzels almost killed our president *gasp*....Are they terrorists!? Added.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:21:43 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 27, 2012 11:22:11 AM PST
Mmmmm... Spoon.

I just had to eat my pudding with a fork. A small spindly little fork. It's so hard to eat pudding with a fork. It's like trying to eat soup with a fork. It doesn't work. I'm so disappointed I forgot a spoon. Please don't ban spoon!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:22:50 AM PST
MrFoxhound says:
Cars are already registered, but it doesn't stop those who drink and drive from killing tens of thousands of people per year.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:23:15 AM PST
Emily Sedai says:
Don't worry, you'll meet your new best friend soon... I call him, spork.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:23:53 AM PST
Pens, needles, scissors, kitchen knives, and my stapler.

All should be banned.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:24:31 AM PST
Sporks still have tines. /cry

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:24:39 AM PST
Anthony says:
yeah, that just seems like total BS to me.

Posted on Dec 27, 2012 11:24:51 AM PST
Nightmare says:
As always, law abiding citizens are inconvenienced and criminals are no worse off. It's amazing that anybody actually thinks this legislation is a good thing. What this really does is set the stage for that particular President that, like Hitler, really wants to run a tyrannical government. The more controls there are on guns, the easier it will be for a tyrannical President to enforce tyrannical rules. The entire reason the 2nd Amendment was even enacted was so individuals could be guaranteed weapons to protect themselves from the government (they learned the value of this protection after dealing with the British government during the American Revolution). Of course, the 2nd Amendment (and the Bill of Rights in general) isn't even needed to know that the Federal Government has no place in restricting gun ownership. Reference this link and the excerpts I quote below:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=679&chapter=68515&layout=html&Itemid=27

"Opposition to a bill of rights did not stem from indifference or hostility toward civil rights, but from the widely held belief that a declaration of rights would be superfluous. The Federal government was to be a government of delegated and enumerated powers. It had no authority to interfere with such matters as speech and religion. A declaration that it had no such authority would merely make explicit what was already implicit in the Constitution, with excess verbiage that simply stated what was already obvious."

"Finally, a bill of rights was not needed, Hamilton maintained, because the Constitution was itself a bill of rights. What protects liberty and gives it meaning and substance is the structure of government-concrete limitations on power, not parchment declarations. If a constitution-and that of the United States is such a constitution-is properly designed to check abuses of power, the government upon which it rests will in the general course of events discourage political authorities from trampling on the liberties of the people. The privileges and immunities that might be proclaimed in such a bill of rights were already embodied in the original document."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:25:41 AM PST
That Emu Kid says:
Sporks make decent spoons, but pretty terrible forks. You ever try to twirl noodles with a spork? It makes me very emu thinking about it.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2012 11:26:38 AM PST
But law enforcement cracking down on drunk drivers has been driving down the per capita drunk driving fatality rate.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  38
Total posts:  220
Initial post:  Dec 27, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 28, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions