You know, the "Hell, yes, we're coming after your AK-47, your AR-15" guy.

Uh huh...that should get Biden a lot of extra undecided votes, lol. Especially in the South and non-coastal West...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-r...ndorsement

just when ya thought they couldn't make it any easier.....

by the chime o' the hour, it continues to strike, "mo' butter for me 'corn, ma'am"....

Fantastic news for the general.

Can anyone point out the mistakes in this Reuters tweet?

(03-03-2020 07:51 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

Can anyone point out the mistakes in this Reuters tweet?

Not a chicken joint. Not boot edge edge.

Fake news

(03-03-2020 08:00 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 07:51 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

Can anyone point out the mistakes in this Reuters tweet?

Not a chicken joint. Not boot edge edge.

Fake news

#plasticStrawMan

I was also wondering why there is a third drink at the table but maybe there is someone to the left of Beto? That also looks to be a Russian over the right shoulder of Biden.

My guess is Biden filled that cup with some type of berry infused alkaline water.

(03-03-2020 08:24 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I was also wondering why there is a third drink at the table but maybe there is someone to the left of Beto? That also looks to be a Russian over the right shoulder of Biden.

lol...nice catch...no question the guy peering from behind has some rooskie in him....

the guy to left of beto is tommy goonie perez wannabe....#covertOpsAndHiding

Beto is an idiot.

I'm a left leaning centrist who owns 2 handguns (Sig P220 and H&K USP) and and 2 rifles (Springfield M1A SOCOM 16 and R700). My best friend who is as red as they come runs a rifle range and gun shop in Ohio....we both have the answer that I don't think anyone can really argue against in a logical way.

Along with a background check and mental health confirmation period, and before the first purchase of a gun in any specific "class" (handgun, scout/short rifle, shotgun, long rifle, etc.), the purchaser must attend a training course, and not one of the ****** CCW courses we offer, but one that fully overviews every part of gun ownership, including safety, maintenance, laws of the state/federal government pertaining to that class, etc.. That would likely limit the impulse buyers who are doing something in the heat of the moment, would cut down on about 80% of the gun accidents in America while dealing with most of the guys we call "range idiots", and fully teach everyone to respect the gun.

(03-03-2020 10:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Beto is an idiot.

I'm a left leaning centrist who owns 2 handguns (Sig P220 and H&K USP) and and 2 rifles (Springfield M1A SOCOM 16 and R700). My best friend who is as red as they come runs a rifle range and gun shop in Ohio....we both have the answer that I don't think anyone can really argue against in a logical way.

Along with a background check and mental health confirmation period, and before the first purchase of a gun in any specific "class" (handgun, scout/short rifle, shotgun, long rifle, etc.), the purchaser must attend a training course, and not one of the ****** CCW courses we offer, but one that fully overviews every part of gun ownership, including safety, maintenance, laws of the state/federal government pertaining to that class, etc.. That would likely limit the impulse buyers who are doing something in the heat of the moment, would cut down on about 80% of the gun accidents in America while dealing with most of the guys we call "range idiots", and fully teach everyone to respect the gun.

As an owner of a number of handguns, a rifle and a shotgun, I think that's a great idea. Won't happen, though. Rs don't want to piss off their constituents, and Ds just want to take away guns.

(03-03-2020 07:51 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

Can anyone point out the mistakes in this Reuters tweet?

LOL!

Only an establishment Dem would go to a Whataburger for chicken.

Wouldn't put Beto in charge of a lemonade stand.

Probably Beto's ol' lady sitting next to him ( reason for third cup). . . Also, that was his price for an endorsement? Gun Control czar? Cheap.

So, just before the Texas primary,where Sanders was already doing well, Biden announces he's putting Captain Earhair in charge of his gun control.

(03-03-2020 08:24 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I was also wondering why there is a third drink at the table but maybe there is someone to the left of Beto? That also looks to be a Russian over the right shoulder of Biden.

looks like a woman in a black sweater with brown hair to the left of Beto

(03-03-2020 10:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Along with a background check and mental health confirmation period, and before the first purchase of a gun in any specific "class" (handgun, scout/short rifle, shotgun, long rifle, etc.), the purchaser must attend a training course, and not one of the ****** CCW courses we offer, but one that fully overviews every part of gun ownership, including safety, maintenance, laws of the state/federal government pertaining to that class, etc.. That would likely limit the impulse buyers who are doing something in the heat of the moment, would cut down on about 80% of the gun accidents in America while dealing with most of the guys we call "range idiots", and fully teach everyone to respect the gun.

Not saying this is a bad idea....

but in all seriousness, rifles account for a miniscule portion of gun deaths in this country.... something like 1% (3-400 out of 30,000)... as for hand-guns, while tragic when they DO happen, what percentage of non-justified gun deaths (accidents or crimes) are related to legal owners?

Assuming the numbers I anticipate... Said more simply... why AGAIN is the first step towards gun control is to go after those who will comply with whatever laws you put in front of them and are responsible for a small percentage of the issues... rather than those who will NOT comply and are responsible for a larger percentage of the issues?

The reason this is an issue is because I believe the right would endorse laws that take guns away from criminals... but they won't endorse laws that take guns away from everyone else.... In part because the stated intention of some who propose ideas like yours IS SPECIFICALLY to take guns away from law abiding citizens. I'm not saying that is YOUR goal... but YOU don't control the legislation

(03-03-2020 12:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 10:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Along with a background check and mental health confirmation period, and before the first purchase of a gun in any specific "class" (handgun, scout/short rifle, shotgun, long rifle, etc.), the purchaser must attend a training course, and not one of the ****** CCW courses we offer, but one that fully overviews every part of gun ownership, including safety, maintenance, laws of the state/federal government pertaining to that class, etc.. That would likely limit the impulse buyers who are doing something in the heat of the moment, would cut down on about 80% of the gun accidents in America while dealing with most of the guys we call "range idiots", and fully teach everyone to respect the gun.

Not saying this is a bad idea....

but in all seriousness, rifles account for a miniscule portion of gun deaths in this country.... something like 1% (3-400 out of 30,000)... as for hand-guns, while tragic when they DO happen, what percentage of non-justified gun deaths (accidents or crimes) are related to legal owners?

Assuming the numbers I anticipate... Said more simply... why AGAIN is the first step towards gun control is to go after those who will comply with whatever laws you put in front of them and are responsible for a small percentage of the issues... rather than those who will NOT comply and are responsible for a larger percentage of the issues?

The reason this is an issue is because I believe the right would endorse laws that take guns away from criminals... but they won't endorse laws that take guns away from everyone else.... In part because the stated intention of some who propose ideas like yours IS SPECIFICALLY to take guns away from law abiding citizens. I'm not saying that is YOUR goal... but YOU don't control the legislation

"Assuming the numbers I anticipate... Said more simply... why AGAIN is the first step towards gun control is to go after those who will comply with whatever laws you put in front of them and are responsible for a small percentage of the issues... rather than those who will NOT comply and are responsible for a larger percentage of the issues?"

You answered your own question. Criminals aren't likely to comply. Or if it would ever get off the ground for the wannabe socialists it'll be easier to control the masses as Mao stated it.

I was so glad that I wasn't seeing stupid ORook on the national stage and now this senile old idiot brings him out...again. Drat!

(03-03-2020 12:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 10:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Along with a background check and mental health confirmation period, and before the first purchase of a gun in any specific "class" (handgun, scout/short rifle, shotgun, long rifle, etc.), the purchaser must attend a training course, and not one of the ****** CCW courses we offer, but one that fully overviews every part of gun ownership, including safety, maintenance, laws of the state/federal government pertaining to that class, etc.. That would likely limit the impulse buyers who are doing something in the heat of the moment, would cut down on about 80% of the gun accidents in America while dealing with most of the guys we call "range idiots", and fully teach everyone to respect the gun.

Not saying this is a bad idea....

but in all seriousness, rifles account for a miniscule portion of gun deaths in this country.... something like 1% (3-400 out of 30,000)... as for hand-guns, while tragic when they DO happen, what percentage of non-justified gun deaths (accidents or crimes) are related to legal owners?

Assuming the numbers I anticipate... Said more simply... why AGAIN is the first step towards gun control is to go after those who will comply with whatever laws you put in front of them and are responsible for a small percentage of the issues... rather than those who will NOT comply and are responsible for a larger percentage of the issues?

The reason this is an issue is because I believe the right would endorse laws that take guns away from criminals... but they won't endorse laws that take guns away from everyone else.... In part because the stated intention of some who propose ideas like yours IS SPECIFICALLY to take guns away from law abiding citizens. I'm not saying that is YOUR goal... but YOU don't control the legislation

I just have one question, one that we both ask a lot of people when we talk about this stuff to users of the range or buyers. Is it really bad learn more about how to care for and respect the weapon you're buying?

What I suggested isn't taking guns away from a soul who wants them and will respect their right to own them, because that's not something I would ever want to do. It would allow for accidental issues to stop happening at the rate they do and allow for greater security of weapons so that more stolen weapons don't flood the markets. It's clear that most of the outrage from the media and the bleeding hearts out there comes from the mass shooting events and domestic issues, things that are not typically done by people who are respectful gun owners. These sorts of programs would do quite a bit to help mitigate the amount of people able to purchase those guns in short order when their emotions may be out of whack. As I said before, I'm not for taking guns away at all, I'm for trying to find a way to weed out individuals who are not purchasing with good intentions.

As for the illegal gun owners, there's literally NOTHING that can be done to mitigate that issue, at this point, it's kind of a wait for those people to figure things out type situation.

(03-03-2020 01:18 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I just have one question, one that we both ask a lot of people when we talk about this stuff to users of the range or buyers. Is it really bad learn more about how to care for and respect the weapon you're buying?

Of course not. It's also not bad to require basic knowledge about issues before you vote on them or have an ID to vote. SOME of it is related to the simple additional costs.

Quote:What I suggested isn't taking guns away from a soul who wants them and will respect their right to own them, because that's not something I would ever want to do. It would allow for accidental issues to stop happening at the rate they do and allow for greater security of weapons so that more stolen weapons don't flood the markets. It's clear that most of the outrage from the media and the bleeding hearts out there comes from the mass shooting events and domestic issues, things that are not typically done by people who are respectful gun owners. These sorts of programs would do quite a bit to help mitigate the amount of people able to purchase those guns in short order when their emotions may be out of whack. As I said before, I'm not for taking guns away at all, I'm for trying to find a way to weed out individuals who are not purchasing with good intentions.

First, I said this wasn't your goal... but it IS the goal of some.

to the bold, how so? Why would adding a few days to the waiting period matter? Sure, it might stop someone who was out of whack for 3 days but not 8... but it could also give some people with issues the false impression that because of the training, they're now 'safer' to own one.

Add to this the cost of compliance now for 100+mm people so as to impact a few who even if they succeed in killing themselves, haven't committed a crime? The solution to this aspect of the issue is better mental health care... not trying to eliminate all the potential options.

While there are all sorts of reasons for things to happen, some evidence suggests that there is little correlation between gun control and suicide rates... merely methods.

Quote:As for the illegal gun owners, there's literally NOTHING that can be done to mitigate that issue, at this point, it's kind of a wait for those people to figure things out type situation.

Here is where you lose me. You're suggesting that doing SOMETHING is better than figuring out a real solution. I couldn't disagree more. Perhaps if there were no chance that 'the left' on the issue wouldn't use this to do even more... but they've openly said that this is their goal.

If you can't require someone to take a knowledge assessment to vote, how can you require them to take one to own a gun?