• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ATF Says Rifles Used in San Bernardino Shooting Were Illegal

Samhain said:
Why not pass a law that says its illegal to use guns to kill people? I mean, its not going to do anything, but then you've at least done something......ami right?

There is a purpose in passing any and all laws, and creating new ones for the sake of creating them, is pointlessly addling citizens with compliance and the executive with enforcement.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "its not doing to do anything"?

Why should any new proposals for gun laws have to pass some arbitrary test that they would have prevented this or any other attack?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
The reality is the only law that would have ANY effect would involve a statist door to door confiscation of every home in the USA.

legal gun owners are involved in less than 1% of all gun crimes including illegal transfers.
Click to expand...

Any effect on what exactly? Why should any new proposals for gun laws have to pass some arbitrary test that they would have prevented this or any other attack?
 
haymarket said:
What do you mean "its not doing to do anything"?

Why should any new proposals for gun laws have to pass some arbitrary test that they would have prevented this or any other attack?
Click to expand...

Well, its already to illegal to kill people with guns, but maybe if this time its in bold and underlined, it will do something.
 
Samhain said:
Well, its already to illegal to kill people with guns, but maybe if this time its in bold and underlined, it will do something.
Click to expand...

Why do you repeat the question but then fail to answer it?
 
Samhain said:
I don't see a question mark in my statement.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with you repeating my question when you reproduce my post as your lead in and then fail to answer the question?
 
Samhain said:
So that would be a legal, 10-round gun, modified to hold 30, with an illegal fore-grip.

The fore-grip is illegal everywhere, from what I can see on the ATF website.
Click to expand...

A pistol grip is illegal? WTF?

My first thought was - why did they buy the scopes. Those iron sights they both have would have been sufficient, given what they were planning on doing. Heck, if you are doing CQB, go for an EOTech, or a just-as-good-knockoff.
 
We shouldn't have laws because criminals don't follow laws.
 
cpwill said:
A pistol grip is illegal? WTF?

My first thought was - why did they buy the scopes. Those iron sights they both have would have been sufficient, given what they were planning on doing. Heck, if you are doing CQB, go for an EOTech, or a just-as-good-knockoff.
Click to expand...

Scopes look cool, man.
 
Samhain said:
So that would be a legal, 10-round gun, modified to hold 30, with an illegal fore-grip.

The fore-grip is illegal everywhere, from what I can see on the ATF website.
Click to expand...

ReverendHellh0und said:
Incorrect.

These were always ILLEGAL, they did not have the required CA "bullet button".


And you can have all those tacticool things in many free states.
Click to expand...

WCH said:
Vertical grips to be precise.
Click to expand...

Now why would it make sense to make the fore-grip / vertical grips illegal? (Just curious about that, I don't know).

cpwill said:
A pistol grip is illegal? WTF?

My first thought was - why did they buy the scopes. Those iron sights they both have would have been sufficient, given what they were planning on doing. Heck, if you are doing CQB, go for an EOTech, or a just-as-good-knockoff.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that my first reaction too.
 
haymarket said:
Why should any new proposals for gun laws have to pass some arbitrary test that they would have prevented this or any other attack?
Click to expand...

Because people would like to know that there's some logical and sensible rationale for further infringing on their Constitutionally protected rights.

You don't pass a law in order to prevent some arbitrary and imaginary potentially possible future crime from maybe happening.

If this act is sufficient justification for enacting a new law then you should be able to demonstrate clearly how the new law will prevent exactly this type of act from occurring.

If you can't demonstrate how a new law will discourage this sort of act from occurring, then maybe your new law doesn't make any real sense.

These people broke dozens of laws while on their rampage.

What makes you think that if only we had just one more law this terrible tragedy would never have occurred?
 
cpwill said:
Those iron sights they both have would have been sufficient, given what they were planning on doing.
Click to expand...

Do we know for sure that what they actually did was what they were planning on doing?

It just doesn't shake out that they would have gone through all the trouble they went through if this was their grand plan.

Thousands of rounds stockpiled, pipe bombs, IED tools, destruction of electronic devices?

It would stand to reason that these folks had much grander designs but that a lack of ability/training, an excess of impetuosity, or an unforeseen event or series of events threw them off script.
 
eohrnberger said:
Now why would it make sense to make the fore-grip / vertical grips illegal? (Just curious about that, I don't know).



Yeah, that my first reaction too.
Click to expand...

The idea is that it makes the firearm more controllable and thus more deadly.

If that blows your mind then hearing that flash suppressors are also considered by some states to be a feature that could lead to the weapon being illegal. Check out page 81 of this PDF for the features that CA considers to be characteristic of an "assault weapon". - http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
This begs just one question really. What new gun laws is obama proposing and the left screaming for that would have stopped Farook and his bride from committing this horrendous islamic terrorist attack?
Click to expand...

You mean besides none?
 
Deuce said:
Scopes look cool, man.
Click to expand...

:lol: at least they didn't go full
weirdgun.jpg
 
soot said:
Because people would like to know that there's some logical and sensible rationale for further infringing on their Constitutionally protected rights.

You don't pass a law in order to prevent some arbitrary and imaginary potentially possible future crime from maybe happening.

If this act is sufficient justification for enacting a new law then you should be able to demonstrate clearly how the new law will prevent exactly this type of act from occurring.

If you can't demonstrate how a new law will discourage this sort of act from occurring, then maybe your new law doesn't make any real sense.

These people broke dozens of laws while on their rampage.

What makes you think that if only we had just one more law this terrible tragedy would never have occurred?
Click to expand...

My feelings on this are that it took us two centuries to get to this point in the USA today where there are likely more guns than there are people.

Its going to take a long time to change our culture and reduce both the profile and demand for guns. Some here would like us to become a far more gun centric society. I would not want that and think we have to take away the allure of the gun that our popular culture and politics have accorded firearms.

It will take years to do this - maybe generations and will involve a fundamental change in how a citizen obtains a firearm and what their responsibilities are with a firearm. Laws on background checks for all gun purchases will be part of this. Laws on registrations will be part of this. Laws restricting types of weapons will be part of this.

Its going to take a long time and involve many different components - some of which will render success while others may be less so.

But its going to take time and anyone demanding the ridiculous standard that any new law must have prevented the last massacre is intentionally put forth as a red herring and an exercise in intellectual fraud by the pro gun lobby forces to set the standard so high that nothing can achieve it.

It is not meant to help solve any problem - but is meant to merely kill any discussion of it.

And that is why this standard must be loudly opposed, exposed as a fraud and railed against whenever the right uses it and it rears its fraudulent head.
 
cpwill said:
:lol: at least they didn't go full
weirdgun.jpg
Click to expand...

Wouldn't put it past them. I wouldn't be at all shocked if these guys' firearms experience primarily came in Xbox form.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Great... we focus on the tools yet again. :doh
Click to expand...

Of course. Because that doesn't require thinking and we know that real thinking is hard and hurts. Much better to go to bed at night all happy and smiling secure in the knowledge that all the world's problems are simple and can be solved with 2 minutes of thought.
 
haymarket said:
My feelings on this are that it took us two centuries to get to this point in the USA today where there are likely more guns than there are people.

Its going to take a long time to change our culture and reduce both the profile and demand for guns. Some here would like us to become a far more gun centric society. I would not want that and think we have to take away the allure of the gun that our popular culture and politics have accorded firearms.

It will take years to do this - maybe generations and will involve a fundamental change in how a citizen obtains a firearm and what their responsibilities are with a firearm. Laws on background checks for all gun purchases will be part of this. Laws on registrations will be part of this. Laws restricting types of weapons will be part of this.

Its going to take a long time and involve many different components - some of which will render success while others may be less so.

But its going to take time and anyone demanding the ridiculous standard that any new law must have prevented the last massacre is intentionally put forth as a red herring and an exercise in intellectual fraud by the pro gun lobby forces to set the standard so high that nothing can achieve it.

It is not meant to help solve any problem - but is meant to merely kill any discussion of it.

And that is why this standard must be loudly opposed, exposed as a fraud and railed against whenever the right uses it and it rears its fraudulent head.
Click to expand...

And that is why the Founding Fathers fought and died to establish the Constitution which includes the 2nd Amendment to protect against forces who think as you have described.
 
Lutherf said:
The idea is that it makes the firearm more controllable and thus more deadly.

If that blows your mind then hearing that flash suppressors are also considered by some states to be a feature that could lead to the weapon being illegal. Check out page 81 of this PDF for the features that CA considers to be characteristic of an "assault weapon". - http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf
Click to expand...

Which of course also makes better for it's legal use as a means of self defense.....
 
Gaius46 said:
Of course. Because that doesn't require thinking and we know that real thinking is hard and hurts. Much better to go to bed at night all happy and smiling secure in the knowledge that all the world's problems are simple and can be solved with 2 minutes of thought.
Click to expand...

Or, rather, go to bed happy smiling and secure because we haven't thought about it at all.
if the tool really doesn't matter, why do people use guns at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom