Piston Slapper

That's how it works already, minus the NRA guy.

Registration is an extreme and it will never happen. Too many people remember what's happened in the last few countries that have said what you just said Burn-E. It's past most gun owner's proverbial line in the sand. Registration leads to confiscation is not a myth.

In the specific case of James Eagan, since he was under medical supervision, it was a failure of those medical professionals to report him as a danger. They certainly could have reported him and quite possibly could have had him held for at least a 72 hour evaluation and possibly committed after that. Pawn shops and gun shows follow the same rules as any other dealer sales, including a NICS search. We don't really need a new database, there just needs to be more mental health records integrated into NICS. The problem is that every proposal to do either one or something like that on a state level has been a horrendously written proposal that lumps all mental illness together (and you can diagnose everyone with something if you wanted to disenfranchise them) that lack due process requirements. I'm also all for some reasonable secure storage requirements, but again, most proposals are a ridiculous overreach and have to be opposed entirely.

Ok, let's focus on that then. How do you propose we "make the world a safer place by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people" without taking them away from everyone? If they've got a criminal record, they're already prohibited and if they've got a mental health record, they're already prohibited. But a good number of the perpetrators had neither of those prior to their incident, they just snapped one day. Short of having psychics who predict that, it's impossible to entirely prevent those people from having access to a gun before they snap without banning them entirely. A better idea is to abolish the "gun free zones" that these dangerous people always go to when they want to get their 15 minutes of fame.

Burn-E's 'you guys won't talk about banning all guns like I want you to so I'm done with this thread' crybaby post was very condescending, got me riled up and it's pretty obvious he's got a closed mind on the subject.

The vast majority of shootings are done with a small, cheap handgun. Not even an "assault" weapon because it's too small to have an evil >10 round magazine and is very often a revolver. They're called saturday night specials for a reason. Love how you link motherjones like it's a source of news, that's just cute. You whine about the NRA "finagling laws" when the lawmakers on your side have willfully broken their oaths to uphold the constitution and used the taxation power illegitimately impose a de facto ban on weapons protected by the second amendment. Some state legislatures have essentially committed acts of treason by turning entire cities and states 'Second Amendment free zones' for the general population, only issuing special permission slips to their friends and bodyguards. Anti-gun nutjobs frequently violate not only the 2nd but also the 1st, 4th, 5th, 11th and 14th amendments in addition to the articles themselves. That's the real travesty. Here's a newsflash for you. You're totally right about one thing. Guns are intended to "be able to threaten to put holes in people", that is their purpose, that is why they're an effective deterrent and the right to keep them is protected. Criminals are much less likely to commit a crime if they know they have a good chance of being killed. This is why you see home invasion frequency inversely proportional to gun control, it's basically unheard of in free states because nearly every home is armed. The second amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep weapons "to be able to threaten to put holes in people". It specifically applies to the small arms used by infantrymen. This is why the AR15 and M16 are completely protected by the 2nd amendment but sawed off shotguns are not. As long as infantry use semi-automatic and automatic weapons, they can not and will not be banned in the United States and any legislator attempting to do so is willfully breaking the oath of office they took to uphold the constitution. Why don't you read something for a legitimate news source for once? The Washington Post, a rather liberal publication, admits they were wrong to accept MJ's manipulated numbers and that real research leads to different conclusions. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/graph-of-the-day-perhaps-mass-shootings-arent-becoming-more-common/ And yes, 0.031 deaths per 100k population per year is a small price to pay for our constitutional rights.

Just to clarify, the '94 AWB didn't have anything to do with real machine guns, just perfectly normal semi-autos that look scary but are functionally identical to grandpa's old hunting rifle. Oddly enough, it did not apply to legally owned pre-'86 machine guns, they could still have all the same scary features.

No form of prohibition works, I think we've proven that by now. Lawsuit challenging the NFA, '86 MG ban, etc: http://www.scribd.com/doc/245057730/Hollis-v-Holder-Complaint

Maybe I was unclear, the delusion many anti's have is thinking the cops will just magically appear the instant you call if you're being mugged/raped/murdered. Merely lacking interest or desire isn't what I was talking about. As Burn-E said, an average of 1/250 chance of being in an incident yearly... but regardless of the chances, it's like a fire extinguisher or condom... I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Because they're delusional, they think the cops are going to show up instantly to save them from anything and refuse to take responsibility for protecting themselves.

A majority of them would have to be willing to commit political suicide for something that the courts would immediately overturn anyway... it's just unrealistic. Short of amending the constitution to delete the second amendment there's no way to ban guns in the USA and good luck doing that without a fight.

They want to ban all handguns too, as far as they're concerned everything but a 5 foot long single shot hunting shotgun should be banned and even those should be reserved to licensed hunters who've never had a parking or speeding ticket. But that's never going to happen, they keep pushing and it just leads to courts upholding the 2nd guaranteeing the right to carry for personal self defense. California could be 'shall issue' soon. There's rumblings of a challenge to the '86 new MG ban and possibly leveraging it to defang the NFA itself.

You can do it pretty much any way you want, digital signals either get there or they don't, you can't get distortion like analog signals. As for a specific device recommendation, you'd need to be more specific on what you're trying to send and to what, but the Audioengine D2 may do what you want.

Cosworth + AMG = the 190E 2.5-16 Evolution II.

You can outlaw guns entirely and people who are determined to commit crimes will still get them. Look at Australia, an incredibly strict national gun ban and criminals just make their own en masse. Same in South America.

Yeah, it's funny how these things always happen in "gun free" zones... it's like the criminals know they can go there, ignore the sign and shoot all the people there who aren't armed because they followed the rule on the sign. Gun control is almost as responsible for those deaths as the shooter himself.

Is it bad that I thought that was the back of it until I saw the tires?

Because it was proof that extremely strict gun control does not prevent determined attackers from getting their hands on weapons and only disarms law abiding citizens, turning them into targets that have to wait for the police to show up to save them. That would have been much, much worse if the anti-gun people had their way. Anti-gun is pro-criminal.

Just scrolled through all those pictures... splooge.

Protip: Real terrorists already have more guns than you can imagine, you're not going to stop them from getting anything with silly laws that only law abiding citizens follow.

You necro'd a four year old thread and expected an immediate response? Really?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2014/10/20/how-gun-control-legislation-is-affecting-this-election/

Problem is that the current political parties have worked together to rig the system so that they're an integral part of it. Between that, the electoral college and the fact that 99% of the time election results follow donation results... we're screwed.

That's what they've been going for all along. That's why it's written into the constitution, the founding fathers knew nutjobs would try to disarm the people so they gave us a means to prevent it.

Because that's expensive and he just had them copy his right then and there?