Is the push for Gun Control by the Democrat one step closer to the Democrat support for UN Agenda 21?

Here's an idea, people who believe in the U.N. Agenda 21 conspiracy theories probably don't have the mental competence that warrants allowing them to carry guns.

"So you'd like to buy a fire arm? Do you think "Agenda 21" is some kind of conspiracy to eliminate U.S. sovereignty? Do you think you need to buy a years worth of food insurance? Are you storing military rations in your basement? Ok well the People of the United States have a compelling interest in not allowing you to have a gun. here is a card for a good psychotherapist though."

I'm not sure but I think some on the OC is not aware of agenda 21. ... Could that be

Belly35;1347525 wrote:I'm not sure but I think some on the OC is not aware of agenda 21. ... Could that be

What section does gun control fall under of Agenda 21? I'll guess Section I.
[h=3][/h]

This is all you need to ever hear about gun control. So much truth in just a few minutes of congressional testimony.

[video=youtube;M1u0Byq5Qis][/video]

jmog;1349981 wrote:This is all you need to ever hear about gun control. So much truth in just a few minutes of congressional testimony.

The murderer had two semi-automatic hand guns and was able to reload multiple times. In other countries they don't have people walking around with semi-automatic handguns and multiple, easily-reloadable clips.

My God. If you read up on the story the dude was kind of an obvious nut-bar who legally purchased his two handguns even losing his seamanship license and being enrolled in a substance-abuse program. Why are people with drug and alcohol problems able to get sem-automatic weapons they can use when they fly off the handle? The guy was a walking tinderbox.

Ms. Hupp's testimony actually made this situation more likely because Texas changed the law and took away discretion from people issuing Concealed Carry licenses to turn someone with obvious problems like George Hennard away if he were to apply.

Instead of asking "what if one of these people had a gun?" we should ask "What if the obvious nut case couldn't easily obtain semi-automatic weapons that offer no tangible benefit to society?"

Good guys with guns don't stop the bad guys. The bad guys blow themselves away after they are through with their slaughter.

Boat, people might take you more seriously if you learn the difference between magazines and clips. The terms are not interchangeable

BoatShoes;1350230 wrote:The murderer had two semi-automatic hand guns and was able to reload multiple times. In other countries they don't have people walking around with semi-automatic handguns and multiple, easily-reloadable clips.

My God. If you read up on the story the dude was kind of an obvious nut-bar who legally purchased his two handguns even losing his seamanship license and being enrolled in a substance-abuse program. Why are people with drug and alcohol problems able to get sem-automatic weapons they can use when they fly off the handle? The guy was a walking tinderbox.

Ms. Hupp's testimony actually made this situation more likely because Texas changed the law and took away discretion from people issuing Concealed Carry licenses to turn someone with obvious problems like George Hennard away if he were to apply.

Instead of asking "what if one of these people had a gun?" we should ask "What if the obvious nut case couldn't easily obtain semi-automatic weapons that offer no tangible benefit to society?"

I think you just got it all wrong (surprise?).

Her testimony was 100% correct, the law makers made the mistake. You got one small part correct, the law makers didn't stop a nut case from getting a weapon.

After that they took away the woman's right to protect herself.

You also managed to ignore the obvious part of her testimony however, the fact that the 2nd amendment had NOTHING to do with what we "need" and what we "need for sport". It was about protecting our selves from "bad people" and protecting ourselves from our own government.

LJ;1350255 wrote:Boat, people might take you more seriously if you learn the difference between magazines and clips. The terms are not interchangeable

:rolleyes:

The terms can be generally interchanged when people who are not firearm aficionados are trying to have an adult conversation in the gun control debate. Rather than obfuscate about the subtle differences between the usage of the term "clip" or "magazine" when "clips" are within the realm of "magazines" perhaps you might argue why clearly disturbed people deserve easy access to semi-automatic weapons in a free society.

Here is the wiki on firearm magazines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_%28firearms%29#Nomenclature

With the increased use of semi-automatic and automatic firearms, the detachable box magazine became increasingly common. Soon after the adoption of the M1911 pistol, the term "magazine" was settled on by the military and firearms experts, though the term "clip" is often used in its place (though only for detachable magazines, never fixed).[SUP][16][/SUP][SUP][17][/SUP][SUP][18][/SUP] The defining difference between clips and magazines is the presence of a feed mechanism in a magazine, typically a spring-loaded follower, which a clip lacks. Use of the term "clip" to refer to detachable magazines is a point of strong disagreement.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP][SUP][21][/SUP]

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a clip as "a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also :a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm".

Focusing on such things is just a language game.

Additionally, you're attacking my credibility. You're implying that because I am not a firearm aficionado adhering to subtle differences in vernacular that my opinion is without merit. This amounts to an attack on my person rather than the argument that providing the mad man in the Texas massacre with fewer opportunities to easily obtain semi-automatic weapons might be better at deterring such incidents than more people carrying concealed weapons.

This appears to be a violation of the forum rules.

1. No personal attacks (including name calling) on other posters.

jmog;1350380 wrote:I think you just got it all wrong (surprise?).

Her testimony was 100% correct, the law makers made the mistake. You got one small part correct, the law makers didn't stop a nut case from getting a weapon.

After that they took away the woman's right to protect herself.

You also managed to ignore the obvious part of her testimony however, the fact that the 2nd amendment had NOTHING to do with what we "need" and what we "need for sport". It was about protecting our selves from "bad people" and protecting ourselves from our own government.

I wasn't talking about her testimony in the video. I was talking about what happened in the Texas legislature in the aftermath of the massacre she survived and focused my arguments around that event.

Have you read anything I've said in the last couple weeks with regard to the 2nd Amendment?

I have acknowledged that 2nd Amendment jurisprudence acknowledges the individual right to bear arms for the protection against coercion from other private citizens. I have acknowledged that 2nd Amendment as it is currently constructed and interpreted, among other things, provides a significant obstacle to a more secure and better society with less gun violence. I feel like you haven't read those posts. I focused none of my reply in response to her views on the 2nd amendment.

Now, what I have said is that I believe those who have concealed carry permits could adequately protect themselves from coercion from private citizens with a Single Action Army.

***Now that I re-read the post you're quoting I should've made it more clear that I was talking about the Luby's massacre that she survived and not her particular testimony in the video. I think the proper conclusion from the Luby's massacre is that it should've been a lot harder for the murderer George Hennard to have a gun, not that there should be more Ms. Hupp's with hand guns in their purses unafraid to take them into all kinds of places.

BoatShoes;1350382 wrote::rolleyes:

The terms can be generally interchanged when people who are not firearm aficionados are trying to have an adult conversation in the gun control debate. Rather than obfuscate about the subtle differences between the usage of the term "clip" or "magazine" when "clips" are within the realm of "magazines" perhaps you might argue why clearly disturbed people deserve easy access to semi-automatic weapons in a free society.

Here is the wiki on firearm magazines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_%28firearms%29#Nomenclature



Focusing on such things is just a language game.

Additionally, you're attacking my credibility. You're implying that because I am not a firearm aficionado adhering to subtle differences in vernacular that my opinion is without merit. This amounts to an attack on my person rather than the argument that providing the mad man in the Texas massacre with fewer opportunities to easily obtain semi-automatic weapons might be better at deterring such incidents than more people carrying concealed weapons.

This appears to be a violation of the forum rules.

The wiki says clips and magazines are NOT the same. If someone doesn't know the difference, why should I pay attention to what guns they think are "reasonable". Do you also think a barrel shroud makes a gun more dangerous? Yes, I am attacking your knowledge of firearms.

When I want your opinion on forum rules, I will ask for it.

So if we get rid of assault rifles and god help us another Adam Lanza walks into a 1st grade class with three handguns and shoots each kid in the head with 1 bullet each killing 18. Does that mean I can no longer own a handgun.

I do not own a gun nor have I ever went hunting but, I know enough about guns to know a bullet is gonna kill you if your shot in the right place no matter what type of gun fired it. I wouldn't mind making it harder for someone to buy a gun ie. more/better background checks, more/better registration laws. I wouldn't mind congress making it impossible for people to buy guns at local gun shows. Make each gun come with a title like a car that must be transferred at a local office when the gun is sold anything like that I'm fine with but anyone who thinks banning a particular type of weapon will stop these random acts is as crazy as the shooters themselves.

BTW the majority of gun crimes and deaths from gun crimes are from handguns not assault weapons.

Boatshoe I will take the risk that my weapon skills will protect the innocent and end the life of the nut case terrorist.
What would you want protecting your happy ass, Belly or the crap in you pants when thatcrazy open up firing at Hungry homies.....

LJ;1350451 wrote:The wiki says clips and magazines are NOT the same. If someone doesn't know the difference, why should I pay attention to what guns they think are "reasonable". Do you also think a barrel shroud makes a gun more dangerous? Yes, I am attacking your knowledge of firearms.

When I want your opinion on forum rules, I will ask for it.

doood. I agree they're not the exactly the same but they are substantially similar enough that discounting an opinion because of such minutiae in the larger picture is pretty silly.

I don't suppose you believe that only medical professionals who have performed partial-birth abortions and the women who've had them can have opinions on whether they should be legal?

sportchampps;1350496 wrote:So if we get rid of assault rifles and god help us another Adam Lanza walks into a 1st grade class with three handguns and shoots each kid in the head with 1 bullet each killing 18. Does that mean I can no longer own a handgun.

I do not own a gun nor have I ever went hunting but, I know enough about guns to know a bullet is gonna kill you if your shot in the right place no matter what type of gun fired it. I wouldn't mind making it harder for someone to buy a gun ie. more/better background checks, more/better registration laws. I wouldn't mind congress making it impossible for people to buy guns at local gun shows. Make each gun come with a title like a car that must be transferred at a local office when the gun is sold anything like that I'm fine with but anyone who thinks banning a particular type of weapon will stop these random acts is as crazy as the shooters themselves.

BTW the majority of gun crimes and deaths from gun crimes are from handguns not assault weapons.

In other rich countries private citizens cannot easily get their hands on hand guns. For example, Israeli civilians, despite being surrounded by hostile neighbors and terrorist groups, by and large, cannot own hand guns.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/07/24/3101546/despite-militarized-society-israels-strict-gun-laws-keep-civilian-violence-down

Obviously that won't happen right now, today in the United States because it would require a Constitutional amendment it appears.

But, what is the tangible benefit to society that widespread access to semi-automatic hand guns provides? Pleasure to their owners is about it. Which is as good a justification for allowing access to them as any.

But, considering that these owners of hand guns are more likely to kill themselves or their family with them than kill an intruder, repel a tyrannical government or deter coercion by another private individual, and this may outweigh the pleasure of using a gun; perhaps society has a compelling interest in limiting access to them in light of this utilitarian calculus?

BoatShoes;1350645 wrote:doood. I agree they're not the exactly the same but they are substantially similar enough that discounting an opinion because of such minutiae in the larger picture is pretty silly.

False

I don't suppose you believe that only medical professionals who have performed partial-birth abortions and the women who've had them can have opinions on whether they should be legal?

I would value someone's opinion more that called it by it's proper medical term than a "baby scraping"

LJ;1350657 wrote:False




I would value someone's opinion more that called it by it's proper medical term than a "baby scraping"

LoL it's not analogous to calling it "baby scraping". In fact, it's kind of similar to using the term "partial birth abortion" in place of intact dilation and extraction.

lots of Military personnel, law-abiding gun owners and police officers often incorrectly use the term "clip" when they mean to refer to a magazine. In my unit we used the term "clip" incorrectly if memory serves but we all knew what we meant. It is neat to know the true difference but is silly to focus on this and discredit their opinion.

It'd be like this;

a guy says: "We should get rid of the home mortgage interest deduction and all the other loop holes!" and a tax economist responds "Maybe we'd take your opinion seriously if you used the proper term "tax expenditure."

It's silly. In fact it seems to be a silly debate amongst gun enthusiasts. I saw these responses on a Clip v. Mag thread on another forum for gun enthusiasts.

http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/showthread.php?424919-Clip-vs-magazine-lol/page2

I’ve never made it an issue about someone calling a magazine a clip. Although incorrect I know what they mean.

If someone calls a cartridge a bullet I know what they mean.

You likely call your car’s generator an alternator. No biggie, I know what you mean.

I merely meant to point out that many of us do not always use the technically correct term and shouldn’t get bent out of shape because of this.

Never called a car engine a "motor" before?

It doesn't slow me down too much,

I have guns with mags and clips,

they both hold bullets. I actually prefer clips,

like my Garand uses, they're a lot simpler, and don't

jut out of the rifle, and snag on "thingies".

But in reality, as an avid shooter with 20+

guns, I just don't care, really. Do you?

I have clips and I have mags.
If I say the wrong nomenclature, am I a ***?

Such a silly thread. Really...

NO, not a ***.

But if you spaz out whenever somebody calls

a mag a clip, you make a "***" look like a saint...

I've had gunshop people say that a magazine is called a clip when it's a handgun magazine. Bugs me to no end.

I should take a few Mosin-Nagant clips with me to Cabela's and ask them if they can find me some, they're always talking about clips there.

Same people don't know what to call the box a belt of ammo is, they probably call it a clip too, as it clips onto the MG.

Also, clips in the top, mags in the bottom. Easy to remember.

I brought that up already... that, or a magalip.

And what about the Lewis machine gun magalip/clipazine/drum/pan? Loaded from the top. And the Thompson 50-rd drum?

Actually, due to age-old verbal habit, I still call things like the .45 mag a "clip" once in a while, since I was shooting long before this silliness arose. And to me, a rifle is still a gun.

Oh, let's see... I think this is the 3,284th thread, across the gun boards I frequent, that this has come up in since about 2006. Check me on that number though, I want to be precise.

This is all a language game. Are we going to start discussing the philosophy of language and argue about Saul Kripke and Hilary Putnam and how words obtain meaning?? In popular American discussions between non-gun aficionados you know what people are talking about. Even people who have competently used guns make this mistake.

People who call tax expenditures loopholes deserve consideration when giving their opinion on tax policy; people who call intact dilation and extraction partial-birth abortion deserve consideration when giving their opinion on abortion and people who call magazines clips deserve consideration when giving their opinion on gun policy.

LJ;1350684 wrote:

At least we know you're one of the annoying guys on the gun boards you frequent. :laugh:

NO, not a ***.

But if you spaz out whenever somebody calls

a mag a clip, you make a "***" look like a saint...

BoatShoes;1350687 wrote:At least we know you're one of the annoying guys on the gun boards you frequent. :laugh:

I don't frequent Any gun boards really. Most are full of mall ninjas

LJ;1350688 wrote:I don't frequent Any gun boards really. Most are full of mall ninjas

I don't understand. Are you saying that gun boards are frequented by ninjas employed by malls?

Oh wait, "Mall Ninjas" doesn't mean actual ninjas at malls. It has a meaning that I can discern from a dictionary.

Since it won't be in Merriam-Websters or the Oxford Dictionary I can go to urbandictionary.com

Mall Ninja "A term used in forums to mean an unexperienced and enthusiastic weapon(usually a firearm)owner who pretends to be a seasoned operator. The phrase came about as a result of an over the top character in a famous satirical thread."


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mall+ninja

Kind of like how I can go to the Oxford Dictionary and the Webster's Dictionary which both declare that the words "clip" and "magazine" can be used interchangeably to refer to what those in the firearm enthusiast call a "magazine" in line with the more traditional definition you're stumping about.

That's right, despite your insistence...in 2012...two of the leading dictionaries in the world indicate that the words "clip" and "magazine" are interchangeable when referring to firearms without causing confusion.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magazine

a holder in or on a gun for cartridges to be fed into the gun chamber

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip[2]

a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also : a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/magazine

a container or detachable receptacle for holding a supply of cartridges to be fed automatically to the breech of a gun:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/clip

a metal holder containing cartridges for an automatic firearm: he shot twice, but his clip was empty

Just like I can look up the definition and proper use of Mall Ninjas in the dictionary, it also true with these other words. Even Remington does it.




So despite your insistence on the issue which is tantamount to being the ultimate grammar police the ultimate custodians of language in our society and a well known weapons manufacturer use the terms interchangeably. Glad we settled that.

I suppose now you'll claim I'm a silly liberal talking about "Gun Control" when this....




is a gun while these....




are small arms.

LOL @ you running in circles.

I'm waiting for you to show me how a barrel shroud is super dangerous, or that a moon clip doesn't allow someone to reload a revolver as fast as a mag change in a glock. Or that a shotgun speedloader on a pump shotgun isn't dangerous but a semi auto shotgun is.