ForumGarden

I just can't imagine the gun manufacturers whom he represents can be happy with his latest gimmickry, they have to see how transparent he appears at this point. I'd be thinking that it's time for new blood. He's being torn to shreds by everyone.

The guy's an nitwit.

We can't even afford enough teachers for the schools, and he wants them to hire armed guards?

We were laughing about that at work, imagining various teacher being armed. This one has border-line PTSD and might see a terrorist in every shadow, would be pulling his weapon every few minutes. That one feels put-upon and hates certain students. He'd probably shoot somebody in the first week. Several would undoubtedly shoot themselves trying to retrieve their gun from purse or holster. etc etc etc

It's a rational solution if you accept his view of the world. Apparently you don't get shootings where everybody gets to carry a gun openly. The alternative is surely that you start taking steps to get assault rifles, at least, out of the hands of ordinary punters.

Ahso!;1413901 wrote: I just can't imagine the gun manufacturers whom he represents can be happy with his latest gimmickry, they have to see how transparent he appears at this point. I'd be thinking that it's time for new blood. He's being torn to shreds by everyone.
Sounded like an Obama federal spending program.

gmc;1414166 wrote: It's a rational solution if you accept his view of the world. Apparently you don't get shootings where everybody gets to carry a gun openly. The alternative is surely that you start taking steps to get assault rifles, at least, out of the hands of ordinary punters.


When was an "assault" rifle used in a school?

gmc;1414166 wrote: It's a rational solution if you accept his view of the world. Apparently you don't get shootings where everybody gets to carry a gun openly. The alternative is surely that you start taking steps to get assault rifles, at least, out of the hands of ordinary punters.


What are assault rifles, in your view?

tude dog;1414179 wrote: When was an "assault" rifle used in a school?
GMC leans heavily on network news descriptions to base his opinions.

One description i heard was: a hunting rifle with a couple of add-on held by duct tape.

Ahso!;1414185 wrote: One description i heard was: a hunting rifle with a couple of add-on held by duct tape.:wah:

tude dog;1414179 wrote: When was an "assault" rifle used in a school?


Maybe assault rifle is a European term, first ones were developed by the germans the world famous AK47 was developed in response and every tom dick and harry has developed one since although i do believe the americans were a bit slow off the mark - (not introducing one till 1964 with the M16) - in accepting the concept which may be why you are unfamiliar with the term. If you like definitions an An assault rifle is a selective fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position"). As opposed to a high powered semi automatic rifle designed for hunting deer and the like. The weapon used in sandyhook I believe was a semi-automatic rifle of the type we would describe as an assault rifle hence my comment.

tude dog;1414179 wrote: When was an "assault" rifle used in a school?


Bushmaster .223: William Spengler Jr. reportedly used same type of gun as Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jacob Tyler Roberts.

tude dog;1414179 wrote: When was an "assault" rifle used in a school?This is what the NRA instructed it's membership to do: i.e. Change the subject from one you know nothing about (common sense safety) to one they probably know nothing about (technical data about guns).

It's a cheap ploy, and quite honestly, an admission that they have not a leg to stand on. In my estimation, this could prove to be a nail in LaPierre's coffin.

SnoozeAgain;1414191 wrote: Bushmaster .223: William Spengler Jr. reportedly used same type of gun as Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jacob Tyler Roberts.


Shame on me for not keeping up with the details on the school shooting details. My bad.

Ahso!;1414193 wrote: This is what the NRA instructed it's membership to do. Change the subject from one you know nothing about (common sense safety) to one they probably know nothing about (technical data about guns).

It's a cheap ploy, and quite honestly, an admission that they have not a leg to stand on. IOW, this could prove to be a nail in LaPierre's coffin.


huh? I don't know anything about your assertion of what the NRA instructs. My question was genuine, and I was in error in that it was my understanding that no semi automatic rifle was used at Sandy Hook.

Ahso!;1414193 wrote: This is what the NRA instructed it's membership to do: i.e. Change the subject from one you know nothing about (common sense safety) to one they probably know nothing about (technical data about guns).

It's a cheap ploy, and quite honestly, an admission that they have not a leg to stand on. IOW, this could prove to be a nail in LaPierre's coffin.Really? I would think that on a subject you support you would characterize it as getting past the histrionics so that we could discuss the real subject.



I suspect you'd rather keep up the fog and fear this time because it helps your position.

tude dog;1414195 wrote: huh? I don't know anything about your assertion of what the NRA instructs. My question was genuine, and I was in error in that it was my understanding that no semi automatic rifle was used at Sandy Hook.
Yup. Almost exclusively, as I understand. The little children were all shot multiple times.

tude dog;1414195 wrote: huh? I don't know anything about your assertion of what the NRA instructs. My question was genuine, and I was in error in that it was my understanding that no semi automatic rifle was used at Sandy Hook.If you didn't do it intentionally, then I'm wrong in this instance, and if I am, so be it. My apologies.

However, this is how many gun enthusiasts have been defending guns as a deterrent. They're saying that we uninformed anti-gun people simply don't know enough to make a proper judgment about that.

Accountable;1414196 wrote: Really? I would think that on a subject you support you would characterize it as getting past the histrionics so that we could discuss the real subject.



I suspect you'd rather keep up the fog and fear this time because it helps your position.Not in the context of this thread.

Ahso!;1414200 wrote: Not in the context of this thread.That's my point. You like histrionics when it serves your purpose. That's a bit disingenuous, if you ask me.

Perhaps you're right and I need to think about it more.