NRA message

Status
Not open for further replies.
oregonboy109 said:
I think the idea of not allowing people on the no-fly list to buy a gun makes a lot of sense.

Why the negative reaction from many conservatives?
Click to expand...


Common sense won't find Lapierre's lifestyle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Terrorists. Call them what they are, murdering bastards.

A semi-auto fires 45 rounds per minute, not 800.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Oh....I thought you were referring to the auto fire pin modificaiton....yeah the sliding stock is a common option. My son's airsoft guns have them....probably the same stocks.

btw.....I took time this afternoon and passed around the 9mm with my girls and the wife....let them practice cocking and loading....and become familiar with it.:yes:
Click to expand...

Now you're drawing a parallel to an AR15 and an air rifle?
C'mon Rick....

Look, I'm not anti gun. I'm probably a few of these poster's worst nightmare, a liberal who owns and uses firearms. But we have a problem in his country, and very few are willing to admit to facts, let alone work to find solutions.
 
Tom-D said:
Criminals by any other faith are still criminals.
Click to expand...

What in the hell is that supposed to mean?
A murdering bastard is a murdering bastard, Christian, Jew, Muslim or Athiest, or any other flavor of the month.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Because you could end up on the watch list because your name is the same as someone else...
Click to expand...

I was just watching a Fox News round table on the President's speech, and one of the panelists had wrongly been placed on the no-fly list, due to travel to and from some country as a reporter.

It's why due process is so important.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Now you're drawing a parallel to an AR15 and an air rifle?
C'mon Rick....

Look, I'm not anti gun. I'm probably a few of these poster's worst nightmare, a liberal who owns and uses firearms. But we have a problem in his country, and very few are wiling to admit to facts, let alone work to find solutions.
Click to expand...
no, I'm drawing any parallels.....but other than the orange tip (not in the pic - but suppose to be there :mad2:)....I'd challenge you to tell the difference between an AR-15 and a paint ball gun. They are virtually identical.....and teens and young adults into this sport have all the tactical gizmos and gadgets....that work on both.
 

Attachments

  • Brent.jpg
    Brent.jpg
    96.4 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
Chip Sylverne said:
What in the hell is that supposed to mean?
A murdering bastard is a murdering bastard, Christian, Jew, Muslim or Athiest, or any other flavor of the month.
Click to expand...
Ya....but the difference is....there is one religion that does condone the killings....and the others don't.:mad2:
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Look, I'm not anti gun. I'm probably a few of these poster's worst nightmare, a liberal who owns and uses firearms. But we have a problem in his country, and very few are willing to admit to facts, let alone work to find solutions.
Click to expand...

I don't own a gun but I'm certainly not against somebody else having one as long as they're qualified. You sound like a rational person who is capable of reaching a compromised solution.
 
FastEddieB said:
I was just watching a Fox News round table on the President's speech, and one of the panelists had wrongly been placed on the no-fly list, due to travel to and from some country as a reporter.

It's why due process is so important.
Click to expand...
Exactly. A list with NO opportunity for due process WILL be abused. I think if a SPEEDY trial / hearing that was open, transparent, and fair was an option, it wouldn't be as bad of an idea, but still dangerous. Ironically, it is probably those who live in the most dangerous situations that need a form of self-defense the most, and they are probably also the most likely to be denied that right.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Exactly. A list with NO opportunity for due process WILL be abused.
Click to expand...

I think the same due process should apply to the Guantanamo "detainees".

Not being able to confront your accusers or even know what you're charged with and based on what evidence falls somewhere between Kafka's "The Trial" and "1984".
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
FTFY....:rofl:...He's not even able to quote a verse from the Bible. :D...but I like the Donald.
Click to expand...

You are probably right about The Donald...but he's the top pick for 36% of Republicans...gut feeling most of those would consider themselves Christian.

By the way...to keep this topic aviation related...

I like airplanes :)
 
I don't know the answer to this question, I'm just throwing it out there. Of all of these mass shootings the president talks about, how many of the bad actors were on the no-fly list? In other words, if it were illegal to buy a gun if you were on the list, how many of these shootings would have been averted? I doubt there were many at all.
 
....and many of those can't quote scripture either.....:lol:
mr_happyland said:
You are probably right about The Donald...but he's the top pick for 36% of Republicans...gut feeling most of those would consider themselves Christian.

By the way...to keep this topic aviation related...

I like airplanes :)
Click to expand...
 
mr_happyland said:
Not true. Pretty much even at this point. How f'ed up is that?

http://aresarmor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/guns-vs-car-deaths-2015.jpg

The fact is that the US has a gun problem. The numbers don't lie.

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/560/me...if/_64891158_gun_deaths_dev_countries_464.gif

My impression is that many Americans don't realize how bad the problem is in our country because they don't know any other reality. The only way reach a solution is to filter out the extreme rhetoric from both sides and present commonsense regulations to what kind of guns/ammo can be bought and the how civilians may purchase said guns/ammo.

Until the NRA looses it stranglehold on our lawmakers, I don't see logic ever making it's way to the table. I must say it's always refreshing when NRA members like Landsickness can rationally discuss the issues without getting all Cliven Bundy on the topic. I can assuredly tell you that the VAST majority of "liberals" have no desire to take away everybody's guns. That myth holds as much water as Obama's "Death Panels".



RyanShort1, did you actually read the Op-ed? it's simply talking about banning certain assault weapons. Seems like a sensible place to start.
Click to expand...

Simply? You have no idea what you're saying, do you?
 
nddons said:
Simply? You have no idea what you're saying, do you?
Click to expand...

If you're trying to break down my choice of words, "simply" was a reference to the NY Times op-ed "simply" suggesting a ban on certain modified assault rifles vs RyanShort's assertion that the article was a call to gather up all guns from civilians.

"Simply" does not refer to the ease in which to accomplish this task. Capiche? If you were trying to imply something else, then please communicate clearly so we can have a civilized debate.
 
mr_happyland said:
If you're trying to break down my choice of words, "simply" was a reference to the NY Times op-ed "simply" suggesting a ban on certain modified assault rifles vs RyanShort's assertion that the article was a call to gather up all guns from civilians.

"Simply" does not refer to the ease in which to accomplish this task. Capiche? If you were trying to imply something else, then please communicate clearly so we can have a civilized debate.
Click to expand...
Woah there buddy. That was not my assertion. I never said all guns.
OTOH, it DOES refer to the guns that are specifically the closest equivalent to what the founders were talking about in the 2nd... arms as in military (militia) small arms - not sporting arms or hunting rifles.
 
It's disappointing that this thread hasn't been closed/removed given the recent decision about the Spin Zone. Maybe the OP could have joined us over there, instead of posting here in contravention of the rules. We are currently having a debate on just this topic.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Are you able to discuss the topic without demonizing those who have a different opinion than you?

Or is that not an ability you have developed?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, was my statement a micro aggression toward you? :sad::sad:

Should I just limit my demonizations to the way you caricatured NRA members in your post 112? Just wondering what the parameters are for this thread.

Or should you just grow a pair and realize that when you discuss a passionate topic, some people may disagree strongly with you?
 
oregonboy109 said:
I think the idea of not allowing people on the no-fly list to buy a gun makes a lot of sense.
Why the negative reaction from many conservatives?
Click to expand...

Because there's no due process to that list, it has known inaccuracies (i.e. Ted Kennedy), it captures people who have similar names without the need to make a match with the identity of people who shouldn't fly, and there's no mechanism to get your name off the list.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Woah there buddy. That was not my assertion. I never said all guns.
OTOH, it DOES refer to the guns that are specifically the closest equivalent to what the founders were talking about in the 2nd... arms as in military (militia) small arms - not sporting arms or hunting rifles.
Click to expand...

I certainly wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, but if you read the posts in the order that they came, mikeinalabama talked about confiscation of weapons, landsickness called this out as propadanda, and then you linked this NYT article about "them coming after our guns." It came across to me that was your assertion.

This thread is giving me a headache. I think I'm done. We can repeat this all over again in a couple of weeks after the next mass shooting.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Fine.

Is it or is it not legally possible to convert an AR15 to fire as many or more rounds per minute as an M4?
Click to expand...

That's at least three posts where you used the term "legal". Can you support that it's legal to convert a semi-auto AR to a select fire or full auto weapon?
 
nddons said:
I'm sorry, was my statement a micro aggression toward you? :sad::sad:



Should I just limit my demonizations to the way you caricatured NRA members in your post 112? Just wondering what the parameters are for this thread.



Or should you just grow a pair and realize that when you discuss a passionate topic, some people may disagree strongly with you?
Click to expand...



I guess you doubling down is a sign that you can't discuss a topic without demonizing those who don't share your views.

That limits your life and your development, not mine.
 
Just an FYI, as pilots, the TSA can already take away a pilot certificate (they could completely destroy a persons' livelihood if they were an airline pilot) with no recourse...
 
asechrest said:
It's disappointing that this thread hasn't been closed/removed given the recent decision about the Spin Zone. Maybe the OP could have joined us over there, instead of posting here in contravention of the rules. We are currently having a debate on just this topic.
Click to expand...

I posted a link, and asked that you pass it along. I guess you can't with out whining about it, simply because you can't discuss any topic that doesn't fit your model of right and wrong.
 
mr_happyland said:
If you're trying to break down my choice of words, "simply" was a reference to the NY Times op-ed "simply" suggesting a ban on certain modified assault rifles vs RyanShort's assertion that the article was a call to gather up all guns from civilians.

"Simply" does not refer to the ease in which to accomplish this task. Capiche? If you were trying to imply something else, then please communicate clearly so we can have a civilized debate.
Click to expand...
Simply as in a "simple" ban on some guns based on their cosmetics. That's simple alright. Simple minded.

We went though that for a 10-year period. It made zero change in the crime stats. So why is it that some want to do the exact same thing?
 
RyanShort1 said:
Just an FYI, as pilots, the TSA can already take away a pilot certificate (they could completely destroy a persons' livelihood if they were an airline pilot) with no recourse...
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of them doing that with out a violation of the Regulations?

There was Bob Hover, but he had recourse. but lost his insurance over it.
 
Tom-D said:
Have you ever heard of them doing that with out a violation of the Regulations?

There was Bob Hover, but he had recourse. but lost his insurance over it.
Click to expand...
Not yet, thankfully, but then I suspect we wouldn't hear about it, either - for "security reasons."
 
Tonight as I watched the POTUS give his speech, I realized he really doesn't know the assault auto fire weapons were restricted to those who hold a Federal Firearm permit.

He keeps asking for a more control of who can buy these assault weapons. What more control can he have?

or

he doesn't know what an assault weapon is.
 
Tom-D said:
I posted a link, and asked that you pass it along. I guess you can't with out whining about it, simply because you can't discuss any topic that doesn't fit your model of right and wrong.
Click to expand...
Says the guy scared of the Spin Zone. I have discussed this probably hundreds of times. But I did it in the forum where it belongs. I have plenty of chops for debate, but that doesn't change the fact that we are on page 8 of a political thread in Hangar Talk, with the basis of the Spin Zone shutdown fresh in mind.
 
Tom-D said:
Tonight as I watched the POTUS give his speech, I realized he really doesn't know the assault auto fire weapons were restricted to those who hold a Federal Firearm permit.

He keeps asking for a more control of who can buy these assault weapons. What more control can he have?

or

he doesn't know what an assault weapon is.
Click to expand...

He and the media have no idea the difference between select fire and semi-auto. Everything is generally an "assault weapon" or the lovely "military style", or the POTUS favorite.. "weapons of war".

At this point it probably doesn't matter though.
They DO need to understand this... Molon Labe!
 
Mutts said:
He and the media have no idea the difference between select fire and semi-auto. Everything is generally an "assault weapon" or the lovely "military style", or the POTUS favorite.. "weapons of war".

At this point it probably doesn't matter though.
They DO need to understand this... Molon Labe!
Click to expand...


He knows exactly what he's saying. He sees them every day.

42179400267b157a5c258255a60a2771.jpg


Or if you're more the religious sort... And not the government sort...

cc14bcaa4c1e5e7dabc7ee2aacc0c311.jpg
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Look, I'm not anti gun. I'm probably a few of these poster's worst nightmare, a liberal who owns and uses firearms. But we have a problem in his country, and very few are willing to admit to facts, let alone work to find solutions.
Click to expand...

I too would like to find solutions.

And (not directed at you Chip), by solution I mean something that is rational, respects everyone's rights.

By rational, I mean having a sound basis. Banning firearms that look scary is not rational. Arbritray limits are not, by definition, rational. DHS/TSA would be a gross example of a reaction to a problem that didn't actually provide any solutions. I hope and pray that we can avoid the knee-jerk actions in the name of DOING SOMETHING.

Anyway, the first step in finding a solution to a problem is to define the problem. Are we concerned with violence or just gun violence? Can we even know ahead of time who might commit acts of terrorism or violence?
 
my mother thinks if we banned toy guns.....adults wouldn't want real guns.:goofy:

I know that sounds silly....but some people really think that. I grew up having to hide my water pistol.....:yikes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top