So what gun was used?

(07-09-2016 09:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-08-2016 12:37 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-08-2016 12:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What we need is for reasonable gun owners such as my friend to come forward and explain exactly what gun control measures can be taking that will allow law abiding citizens to retain their rights but at the same time keep guns out of the hands of would be criminals.

I've always said I am all for thorough background checks but not retention of records because that has been used in the past to confiscate weapons at a later date.

Same here. I don't even have a problem with some regulation on high cap mags...but.. Im not sure at this point how you are going to stop people from obtaining them now with so many already in circulation.

So someone buys an AR and sells it to someone. Background check comes back ok...then they go on vacation to Saudi Arabia. Congratulations....we have no record of that weapon.

(07-09-2016 09:34 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 09:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-08-2016 12:37 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-08-2016 12:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What we need is for reasonable gun owners such as my friend to come forward and explain exactly what gun control measures can be taking that will allow law abiding citizens to retain their rights but at the same time keep guns out of the hands of would be criminals.

I've always said I am all for thorough background checks but not retention of records because that has been used in the past to confiscate weapons at a later date.

Same here. I don't even have a problem with some regulation on high cap mags...but.. Im not sure at this point how you are going to stop people from obtaining them now with so many already in circulation.

So someone buys an AR and sells it to someone. Background check comes back ok...then they go on vacation to Saudi Arabia. Congratulations....we have no record of that weapon.

Maybe if municipalities like NY had not used registration as a means for later confiscation I might be more trusting.

(07-09-2016 12:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 09:34 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 09:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-08-2016 12:37 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-08-2016 12:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What we need is for reasonable gun owners such as my friend to come forward and explain exactly what gun control measures can be taking that will allow law abiding citizens to retain their rights but at the same time keep guns out of the hands of would be criminals.

I've always said I am all for thorough background checks but not retention of records because that has been used in the past to confiscate weapons at a later date.

Same here. I don't even have a problem with some regulation on high cap mags...but.. Im not sure at this point how you are going to stop people from obtaining them now with so many already in circulation.

So someone buys an AR and sells it to someone. Background check comes back ok...then they go on vacation to Saudi Arabia. Congratulations....we have no record of that weapon.

Maybe if municipalities like NY had not used registration as a means for later confiscation I might be more trusting.

liberals need to learn the consequences of their actions. This is the item that is ALWAYS pointed to when a gun supporter says "I wouldnt have any problem with background checks except...."

and if people like Boxer and others hadn't said that was their goal....

and if people like Obama and a few court justices hadn't argued that 'the right to bear arms' doesn't really exist.

You don't have to confiscate weapons, if you require that everyone who has one (and we know who you are) pay an annual $500 per gun licensing fee and pass an annual inspection that costs $99 per gun and carry $1mm in liability insurance. Tens of millions of people could not afford to comply. This is essentially the same argument as those who say that $10 for a 5-10 yr voter ID is too much to pay and disenfranchises people... and we're simply picking a dollar figure to put on that requirement to see how many people we can disenfranchise. At $10 every 5 years, you probably don't disenfranchise many people... but why would it have to be $10? Why couldn't it be $100, or $1,000 or even $100,000?

How many people can afford a car or motorcycle, but can't afford even liability insurance?

It's not a ban, but it still takes guns away from millions of Americans

(07-09-2016 09:30 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  So what gun was used?

Just heard on FOX News from LT COL Bill Cowan (RET)

Total paraphrase and not exact quote (best to my recollection I could be off by a little):

"The gun he used was a WWII vintage Soviet SKS and they (the United States Army) got a lot of them in Vietnam....old weapon......"

In fact, if my memory serves me well.....

LT COL Bill Cowan (RET) said the gun used was.......

"ratty and (the shooter) had to have further training just to be accurate with it but it held 10 rounds. A magazine you put in it."

Again, not exact quote but I believe close.

(07-09-2016 08:09 PM)Dasville Wrote:  In fact, if my memory serves me well.....

LT COL Bill Cowan (RET) said the gun used was.......

"ratty and (the shooter) had to have further training just to be accurate with it but it held 10 rounds. A magazine you put in it."

Again, not exact quote but I believe close.

I own several SKS rifles, some chinese, some Russian. Great guns. Nowhere near as finicky as an AR, ammo is cheaper (well last time I bought any) and parts are readily available.

(07-08-2016 12:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What we need is for reasonable gun owners such as my friend to come forward and explain exactly what gun control measures can be taking that will allow law abiding citizens to retain their rights but at the same time keep guns out of the hands of would be criminals.

They can start with "stop and frisk". This will guarantee that any criminal will think twice about going out and about with a gun. If that guy has the feeling from the hairs on his back standing up that someone out there just might stop him and frisk him and hand him a "do not pass, do not collect 200 dollars" one way ticket to the hoosegow we'll we start putting an end to blacks killing blacks and other crimes.

But your people, the libs, keep crying about individual rights. If it's against the law and you know it and also know that you shouldn't be carrying a gun and get stopped and frisked then it's on you. I'm willing to bet that any law abiding individual with a license to carry will never offer resistance because he knows it's for everyone's good. Libs only have themselves to blame.

(07-09-2016 08:09 PM)Dasville Wrote:  In fact, if my memory serves me well.....

LT COL Bill Cowan (RET) said the gun used was.......

"ratty and (the shooter) had to have further training just to be accurate with it but it held 10 rounds. A magazine you put in it."

Again, not exact quote but I believe close.

Unless it was converted a SKS has an internal 10 round magazine. The conversion process isn't hard, but the only reason I could see to convert it from a 10 round internal to a 10 round detachable is to make it easier to load.

But man if true it's going to be hilarious to see the leftist gun-grabbers bemoan the use of a "powerful military grade weapon" that has been militarily obsolete in all but the most poorest countries for well over 30 years.

(07-09-2016 09:22 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(07-08-2016 12:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What we need is for reasonable gun owners such as my friend to come forward and explain exactly what gun control measures can be taking that will allow law abiding citizens to retain their rights but at the same time keep guns out of the hands of would be criminals.

They can start with "stop and frisk". This will guarantee that any criminal will think twice about going out and about with a gun. If that guy has the feeling from the hairs on his back standing up that someone out there just might stop him and frisk him and hand him a "do not pass, do not collect 200 dollars" one way ticket to the hoosegow we'll we start putting an end to blacks killing blacks and other crimes.

But your people, the libs, keep crying about individual rights. If it's against the law and you know it and also know that you shouldn't be carrying a gun and get stopped and frisked then it's on you. I'm willing to bet that any law abiding individual with a license to carry will never offer resistance because he knows it's for everyone's good. Libs only have themselves to blame.

Stop and frisk whom? Where? When? I wouldnt have a problem with it if they are going to do it to everyone but if you are going to leave it to the cops discretion, then I have a problem.

(07-09-2016 09:34 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So someone buys an AR and sells it to someone. Background check comes back ok...then they go on vacation to Saudi Arabia. Congratulations....we have no record of that weapon.

I'm not really following you here... but San Bernardino bought a weapon legally, passed a check... went to the middle east and at some point became radicalized (maybe before or after they bought the gun) but were checked out by TSA and homeland security and passed... So are you suggesting that a gun background check should be more stringent than a homeland security background check? How about an FBI terrorism check? Orlando passed that twice.

The only thing you MIGHT impact is that you might be able to attach the ultimate crime to the person who sold them the gun... but how does that stop the crime? This is the death penalty argument... only worse... because all they have to do is claim the gun was stolen or file off the serial numbers and then mix the parts.

(07-10-2016 12:23 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Stop and frisk whom? Where? When? I wouldnt have a problem with it if they are going to do it to everyone but if you are going to leave it to the cops discretion, then I have a problem.

This is an issue. I get what you're saying, but 'profiling' works. People who abuse it aren't profiling... but profiling works. MOSTLY it works because it concentrates resources rather than wasting them.

The problem is that some people 'act' guilty because they are guilty... of the crime you're looking for... and others 'act' guilty because they are guilty, but of something else.... and then others 'act' guilty because they are afraid of the police, but have no 'guilty' reason for it. THAT we can perhaps solve... but how are we going to solve the guy who is involved in crimes so he is evasive and shady when the cops look at him, but they don't know if it is because they have pot in their pocket, or because they just killed someone?

(07-09-2016 04:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  and if people like Boxer and others hadn't said that was their goal....

and if people like Obama and a few court justices hadn't argued that 'the right to bear arms' doesn't really exist.

You don't have to confiscate weapons, if you require that everyone who has one (and we know who you are) pay an annual $500 per gun licensing fee and pass an annual inspection that costs $99 per gun and carry $1mm in liability insurance. Tens of millions of people could not afford to comply. This is essentially the same argument as those who say that $10 for a 5-10 yr voter ID is too much to pay and disenfranchises people... and we're simply picking a dollar figure to put on that requirement to see how many people we can disenfranchise. At $10 every 5 years, you probably don't disenfranchise many people... but why would it have to be $10? Why couldn't it be $100, or $1,000 or even $100,000?

How many people can afford a car or motorcycle, but can't afford even liability insurance?

It's not a ban, but it still takes guns away from millions of Americans

I'm going back to training in federally mandated public/private education so people understand the consequences of usage.....

if we can train 'em to not stick their hand in the fire or the socket, surely this can be accomplished....

weapons aren't going away....only violence when backed in the corner is a constant....

my left or right foot could put you on the ground....the fingers would do the rest.....but a weapon is more effective in defense from afar....

edit: btw, what does "more deadly" mean in totality....people are going to die regardless....so what if it's 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 at that level of engagement....

just wait until the fkrs gain nuke/chemical ability....

one has to understand population control and warfare before engaging effectively....

this is just titty shite....that fkr ain't gotta clue....he couldn't exhume watson's tampon out of his arse....

(07-10-2016 11:47 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 09:34 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So someone buys an AR and sells it to someone. Background check comes back ok...then they go on vacation to Saudi Arabia. Congratulations....we have no record of that weapon.

I'm not really following you here... but San Bernardino bought a weapon legally, passed a check... went to the middle east and at some point became radicalized (maybe before or after they bought the gun) but were checked out by TSA and homeland security and passed... So are you suggesting that a gun background check should be more stringent than a homeland security background check? How about an FBI terrorism check? Orlando passed that twice.

The only thing you MIGHT impact is that you might be able to attach the ultimate crime to the person who sold them the gun... but how does that stop the crime? This is the death penalty argument... only worse... because all they have to do is claim the gun was stolen or file off the serial numbers and then mix the parts.

(07-10-2016 12:23 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Stop and frisk whom? Where? When? I wouldnt have a problem with it if they are going to do it to everyone but if you are going to leave it to the cops discretion, then I have a problem.

This is an issue. I get what you're saying, but 'profiling' works. People who abuse it aren't profiling... but profiling works. MOSTLY it works because it concentrates resources rather than wasting them.

The problem is that some people 'act' guilty because they are guilty... of the crime you're looking for... and others 'act' guilty because they are guilty, but of something else.... and then others 'act' guilty because they are afraid of the police, but have no 'guilty' reason for it. THAT we can perhaps solve... but how are we going to solve the guy who is involved in crimes so he is evasive and shady when the cops look at him, but they don't know if it is because they have pot in their pocket, or because they just killed someone?

I dont have a problem with profiling so long as it isnt racial profiling. Thats just lazy.

(07-10-2016 12:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I dont have a problem with profiling so long as it isnt racial profiling. Thats just lazy.

If you're pulling someone over because they're black, that's absolutely wrong... but that isn't what happens in a majority of the instances. In a majority of the incidences, there is 'something else'...

Let's use a rather obvious example... Zimmerman. I may not have this 100% correct and we're going from one side of the story... AND he's not a cop.... but if we accept the story at face value for a moment and pretend he were a cop... He followed Martin not merely because he was black. Other black people lived in the neighborhood. He followed him because there had been crimes committed by 'young' black men, he didn't recognize him and he seemed to be 'checking out' the neighborhood... and with his hoodie up, he seemed to be trying to hide his identity. Then he ran.

So is that lazy racial profiling or was it 'a series of unfortunate events'? At what point did his actions turn from merely trying to identify a stranger into suspicion of criminal action?

Frankly, I think it's lazy (not on your part because you didn't say this) to call it simple racial profiling... but that is precisely what some did. I'm not saying it doesn't happen... I'm saying it doesn't happen as often as people claim it happens...

more significantly, it doesn't happen so often that we need to make 'stop everyone' our policy so as to try and avoid the appearance. i.e. how we address airline security vs how Europe and Israel do.

(07-10-2016 04:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-10-2016 12:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I dont have a problem with profiling so long as it isnt racial profiling. Thats just lazy.

If you're pulling someone over because they're black, that's absolutely wrong... but that isn't what happens in a majority of the instances. In a majority of the incidences, there is 'something else'...

Let's use a rather obvious example... Zimmerman. I may not have this 100% correct and we're going from one side of the story... AND he's not a cop.... but if we accept the story at face value for a moment and pretend he were a cop... He followed Martin not merely because he was black. Other black people lived in the neighborhood. He followed him because there had been crimes committed by 'young' black men, he didn't recognize him and he seemed to be 'checking out' the neighborhood... and with his hoodie up, he seemed to be trying to hide his identity. Then he ran.

So is that lazy racial profiling or was it 'a series of unfortunate events'? At what point did his actions turn from merely trying to identify a stranger into suspicion of criminal action?

Frankly, I think it's lazy (not on your part because you didn't say this) to call it simple racial profiling... but that is precisely what some did. I'm not saying it doesn't happen... I'm saying it doesn't happen as often as people claim it happens...

more significantly, it doesn't happen so often that we need to make 'stop everyone' our policy so as to try and avoid the appearance. i.e. how we address airline security vs how Europe and Israel do.

I do thank you and owl for promoting and explaining in detail.....it does still matter you guys are out there....

(07-10-2016 04:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-10-2016 12:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I dont have a problem with profiling so long as it isnt racial profiling. Thats just lazy.

If you're pulling someone over because they're black, that's absolutely wrong... but that isn't what happens in a majority of the instances. In a majority of the incidences, there is 'something else'...

Let's use a rather obvious example... Zimmerman. I may not have this 100% correct and we're going from one side of the story... AND he's not a cop.... but if we accept the story at face value for a moment and pretend he were a cop... He followed Martin not merely because he was black. Other black people lived in the neighborhood. He followed him because there had been crimes committed by 'young' black men, he didn't recognize him and he seemed to be 'checking out' the neighborhood... and with his hoodie up, he seemed to be trying to hide his identity. Then he ran.

So is that lazy racial profiling or was it 'a series of unfortunate events'? At what point did his actions turn from merely trying to identify a stranger into suspicion of criminal action?

Frankly, I think it's lazy (not on your part because you didn't say this) to call it simple racial profiling... but that is precisely what some did. I'm not saying it doesn't happen... I'm saying it doesn't happen as often as people claim it happens...

more significantly, it doesn't happen so often that we need to make 'stop everyone' our policy so as to try and avoid the appearance. i.e. how we address airline security vs how Europe and Israel do.

profiling is absolutely required....I got taken to jail for possessing a stolen weapon the eve before vet day 3 yrs ago....no dui (they jacked it when he called in the s/n and "stolen 10 yrs ago" came back over the radio.....

I told them I had one loaded in the side pouch and was pulled over b/c it was an '02 with ladders hanging out the back and dented from jackknifing by my crew....all I was doing was getting late night ciggy butts....and had borrowed the gun after getting broken into when mine were stolen a week prior.....

my white privilege got my nuts bonded out on vet's day (good luck with that when vet's day is on a fri) and no billed (later after tossing my lawyer 2.5k).....yeah, I'm that ************ that knows folks know in a small town....

most don't have that luxury....people don't understand how shite works....or how it should....

and it's painful at times when in the wrong place....

the stories when I had to wait it out are beyond funny.....just one....."don't fk with old school....old school's kewl"

another....yeah I got to watch a shanking at the 6.a.m.

some of yaz don't have a fk'n clue what that life is all about for those unfortunate

what is more unfortunate is those are even worse off voting blue....

I'm that motherfucking observer.....is why Twain and Darwin are my heroes coupled with pops....

Funny how Uncle Ben runs his mouth from Poland about the nlack on white crime against peace officers in Dallas. Yet he can't call it by name.

Plus the weapon used was a1950 Russian SKS 30-30. A frraking Deer rifle basically. But no it's an assault rifle and weapon of war. What a loser Uncle Ben is.