Cheech

Since you asked... In 2008, according to the CDC (source here from UPenn) there were 73,622 incidents of non-fatal firearms injuries in the US. 73% of those were interpersonal violence related, so for purposes of this discussion I'm going to assume that 73% of that number was intentional violence. That still leaves 19,877, which translates to 1656 per month, or 59 per day. So no, I don't believe this is coincidence. For "responsible gun owners", 59 a day is a pretty large number. Since I laid my cards on the table, please cite evidence explaining why this is some sort of media conspiracy.

I understand that accidents happen, I also understand that with any event tracked over time, there are always outliers or freak occurrences that defy the standard deviation. I also understand that guns are tools that can cause massive harm and/or death if used improperly. It doesn't help your cause that you say on the one hand that firearms need to be handled by "responsible gun owners", yet when those same people handle said firearms, they have multiple "accidents", which endangered multiple people and harmed innocent people. Accidents happen in your house when you're alone, and the only one you're harming is yourself. In this case, I'm calling it what it is, reckless endangerment.

But I thought you were all "responsible gun owners"? Could you not congregate peaceably to conduct commerce amongst yourselves without fear of the possibility of someone negligently discharging a firearm and inadvertently shooting one or multiple people? Apparently, that's asking a little too much now.

Could I ask a bunch of rhetorical and blatantly speculative questions without a shred of evidence to back up my claims? Maybe, seems pretty likely. I can't say for certain, but it's probably due to the fact that 5 PEOPLE GOT SHOT. Shot being defined as "hit with projectile emanating from a device capable of launching said projectiles". Just because you choose to spin this to your own ends ("responsible gun owners" shooting other "responsible gun owners" is pretty damaging to your case, you have to admit), doesn't diminish or negate the fact that 5(!) people went to the hospital for a GSW.

Yes, everything's a conspiracy when it comes to the media. Nevermind that 3(!) different "responsible gun owners" shot either themselves or others on the day that "responsible gun owners" ordained that they should all get together and celebrate the fact that they are "responsible gun owners."

*glances expectantly* We really should do this again... Good seeing everyone, as always.

I don't have to go over your posts with a fine tooth comb, because you make it so easy with the derp you already spew out. Again, you're changing the conditions of the argument to suit your own ends, which implies that you don't have a leg to stand on and have to manufacture shit in order to form a argument in the first place. If you go to a gun store, attempt to purchase a gun, and you card gets declined, that's probably because YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FUCKING MONEY. This isn't what this thread is about, this is about a bank that saw a massive increase in inflow funds on a business, and put a hold on it to investigate. Yes, it's exacerbated by the fact that whatever guy on the phone told him it was about guns was a moron, but this is something that happens, for better or for worse, all the time and is almost completely automated. As far as the ATM thing goes, would you rather have someone with your debit card info clean out your entire account, instead of being limited to only $300 a night? If you want to buy a gun that bad, plan the fuck ahead.

I told him that in the Yeager thread. Apparently either he enjoys trolling, or he's a moron.

You're quoting yourself in support of your own argument?

For someone who's such a staunch enforcer of your Second Amendment rights, it surprises me how quickly you're willing to cede your Fourth Amendment rights.

No. My opinion is that CBP should enforce the BORDER, and land surrounding said border, to a reasonable distance. 100 miles inland is not a reasonable distance, even worse is stopping American citizens while traveling inside of the US border without even so much as reasonable suspicion. They just transplant their border powers that I would have been governed by if I was crossing the port of entry to the checkpoint well inside the border. I'm willing to bet a substantial amount of money that if you went through one of these checkpoints and saw how absolutely futile they are, you'd be just as pissed off about them as I am.

Ordinarily, Customs authority starts and ends at the ports of entry. CBP has started (like 5-10 years ago) setting up checkpoints WAY inland, easily 40 miles from the established border, and well within United States territory, for the sole reason to do spot checks and generally harass "possible" human smugglers. Feel free to do some searches on it, it's a well-established fact and I've personally been through several in Arizona. The arbitrary "100 mile zone" is to give CBP the authority to conduct these checkpoints past the point of entry.

Agreed. The 100-mile zone is just CBP fucking with people, and they are shitstains as a result of it.

You're right, it isn't, and that's what's fucked up. Land/Sea/Air ports of entry? Them's a constitutional free zone, with precedent dating all the way back to the 1790's.

Now this is where I flake out a little with regard to the regulations of Class 3 gun ownership, so I'm sure someone will be along to correct me shortly. Is it a prerequisite to have a FFL in order to own a NFA firearm, or is that just preferred by the buyer in order to make the process easier? As far as the customs regulations goes, Customs authority derives all the way back to the Founding Fathers themselves. Customs can fuck with you if they got a rash this morning, and they (for better or worse) are within their Constitutional authority to do so. What shouldn't be within their authority (and where they've massively over-reached) is the 100 mile "constitution-free zone" they've been using on inland searches. I've been personally hassled easily 40 miles inland from the US/Mexico border crossing, and it's bullshit. Ports of entry and inbound/outbound foreign ships in port? Fair game.

Nice and close to downtown, I'm in.

And Obama opened up gun restrictions on federally owned land. ACA = Affordable Care Act, or as you know it, Obamacare.

Citation needed on the ATF home inspections, the only thing I'm coming up with is if you are a FFL. Again, you're twisting my argument, so I'll state it again. Magazine capacity is a stopgap, a "lesser of all evils" from clawback of existing guns (which won't happen for Constitutional reasons, and rightly so). It's not the "great savior", it's a small preventative measure. Nice "No True Scotsman" as well, there are plenty of people that don't have the training to reload in 2 seconds, I can think of the Arizona shooter right off the top of my head. As a result of his "incompetence", the situation was defused by a bystander. Yes, exactly. This would be a "perfect" measure, much better than a magazine restriction. However, we tried something similar to this with the ACA, and look where that ended up. Besides, you just want to give them one shallow psych exam, label them crazy or not, and send them on their way? That doesn't seem like it would do much good to fix the problem, just affixing another label. As you point out, they would still get a gun anyway, so why don't we give them the help they need? That's great, except the Constitution doesn't apply to private property. Never has. I can open up a restaurant and put up a big NO GUNS sign, and if I see you printing/OC I am well within my rights to ask you to leave. As a private business, my rights as the business holder to be free from guns trumps your Constitutional right to carry, as you've made the conscious choice to enter my shop and abide by my rules for the time that you're in there. You mean a weapons ban will INCONVENIENCE you and your family. Your quick to point out my reasons as being hypothetical but the thought of a weapons ban doing any good is hypothetical. It may reduce gun violence but that will only be replaced with violence using another tool. Ah, the good ol' Slippery Slope. I don't want to ban magazines, I don't want to ban guns. I do want to have a outlet where people that need mental health help can get it, and have that outlet be available for everyone. That's my "great savior", and that's the absolute core of my argument. Apparently, from the level of vitriol that was leveled at the ACA, we can't have those nice things as a country.

Thanks for proving my point, that "equal firepower" isn't necessary to effect change if the populace is willing to make the sacrifice in violence.

I'm pretty sure that Blazing Saddles still has a little popularity, at least I'd hope so.

Free market at work. I thought you guys were all about free market, supply and demand, stuff like that?

Fuck you too, guv'nor, this should have been mine as well. Off to find me Bren gun.

This is why people like me hate discussing this, because you constantly base the discussion on completely false "facts". A AWB isn't unconstitutional, if was there were 10 years where someone could have challenged it's constitutionality in court. Once again, YOUR FREEDOM TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS NOT BEING INFRINGED. Period. You have guns? Keep them. You have guns that are about to be more tightly regulated? Keep those too. You want to buy a gun that's not a part of the AWB after it's passed? Fine, as long as you jump through whatever regulatory hoops there are after it's passing. YOU CAN STILL BUY GUNS. YOU CAN STILL KEEP GUNS. YOU CAN STILL SHOOT GUNS. YOU CAN STILL HAVE A CCW THAT YOU OBTAINED PRE-AWB. YOU CAN STILL OBTAIN A NEW CCW AFTER THE BAN GOES INTO EFFECT. Seriously, how hard is this to understand? As for the police/military, I'm not taking that bait other than to say that they follow orders. Your argument is purely hypothetical, and the assumptions you make that the police will immediately jump ship and join the side of the "protestors" has no basis in any recent American history. Unless you got something to back that up where a police force of any stripe disobeyed orders en masse in the face of a protest, I'm calling bullshit. By the way, nice strawman you have there with inserting the "invading army" thing. Go back and re-read my argument. EVERYONE DOESN'T HAVE EQUAL FIREPOWER. Not in Mexico, not in Chicago, not in Ohio, and not anywhere else in the US. Police departments have easy access to full-auto rifles, not to mention surplus gear direct from the DoD, for free even. Do you have a APC? Do you have access to a LAW to attempt to penetrate the armor of a APC, thereby evening the odds? No, you don't. You also don't have easy access to full-auto weapons, unless they were made prior to 1986 and even then they're a little cost prohibitive. Just because you can tacticool out your AR15 to look like a SWAT rifle, doesn't make it on par with one. My point is simple, instead of trotting out the nirvana fallacy, there is headway to be made. You can start with drum magazines. In the event of a mass casualty situation, would I want someone that has a round capacity of 80 or a round capacity of 10? This would cause him to carry less ammo, and therefore inflict less casualties, even more so when he tries to reload, that could possibly create the opportunity for someone to pounce on him and stop the incident (see Giffords shooting) You can hit me with retrospective determinism (found my Logic textbook), or my favorite red herring of "well, I can reload in 1.5s, that's not enough time to do anything!", but out of all the mass shootings in the US in recent times, the VAST majority were from people with no formal firearms training.

Fuck you, that should have been mine. Chris Nolan (of Batman fame) also directed that too.

"Are all men from the future loudmouth braggarts?" "Just me, baby, just me."