R
Robert_Sock
Guest
I’m no gun shooter, but I would say 5-10 seconds. If it’s that fast to change, why are people complaining?
- Status
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Actually, our founding fathers were familiar with repeating rifles. Thomas Jefferson having given one to the Lewis and Clark expedition.
watchdogwire.com/florida/video/1779-girandoni-air-rifle-as-used-by-lewis-and-clark-fits-feinstein-definition-of-assault-rifle/
Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Adams were educated men well aware of technology and the march of progress.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
But they weren’t. They were recalled for acting against what was in the peoples best interest, as the people determined it.
Or, again, do you consider the electorate in Colorado to be children, simply because they don’t agree with your assessment? Do you really believe the voters in Colorado haven’t considered your arguments and rejected them based on facts and assessment of the pros/cons?
Or are they children because of the fact they rejected the arrogance of a couple of politicians deliberately ignoring their constituents. That they refused to accept the role of helpless children vice seeing themselves as responsible adults?
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Perhaps because the educated gun shooters in Colorado are numerous and realize limitations on magazines have no beneficial effect in deterring or limiting criminals. That they assessed in home invasion type situation a homeowner would require more than 10 rounds.
Or they understand the basis for the right in the constitution.
Perhaps they were complaining more over politicians who had no idea what they were talking about when it came to firearms passing laws they couldn’t/wouldn’t justify on a rational basis and refusing to hear from their constituents, or sheriffs who were familiar with firearms.
M
Michael57
Guest
Try this one instead: “Buyer Beware”
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
So, you’re willing to abdicate what happens in this country to a few politician’s definition of what is in society’s best interest. I really do have a problem with that, but then here’s just a couple things the politicians deemed were in society’s best interest, not always with the concurrence of their constituents.
Like, ensuring underage girls can get abortion’s without parental notification.
Ensuring all high school kids have access to condoms, and are instructed that teen sex is A-Ok and its just unrealistic to expect them to control themselves.
Instituting gay marriage.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Sounds like the NRA is out for blood. Why don’t they pay researchers to replicate the findings using a similar set of data? It also sounds to me like the data must be readily available through the Statistical Abstracts! So, what’s preventing them from replicating the findings? The NRA should either put up, or shut up!
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Exactly, such novel ideals, and the more I watch Obama the more obvious long term consequences are never a concern. Its instant gratification which is sought. Just like with guns, restrict their guns and presto, no more problem. But the real problems as always are never addressed.
M
Michael57
Guest
Did you read the article?
They did “put up”.
However here are some problems (only a few of many) that the authors you seem to think are rock solid have:
- The authors claimed that they “lost” their data. (that doesn’t even work in grade school does it?)
- They wouldn’t share their methodology with other researchers so that the work could be validated.
- Those researchers that were attempting to approximate the research method in spite of the lack of cooperation from the authors were not able to reproduce the same results or conclusions.
D
Deus_tecum
Guest
Did you read the article?
They did “put up”.
However here are some problems (only a few of many) that the authors you seem to think are rock solid have:
I would call that rather shoddy work from any research group, let alone one using the name of Harvard.
- The authors claimed that they “lost” their data. (that doesn’t even work in grade school does it?)
- They wouldn’t share their methodology with other researchers so that the work could be validated.
- Those researchers that were attempting to approximate the research method in spite of the lack of cooperation from the authors were not able to reproduce the same results or conclusions.
:clapping:
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
This is what happens when politicians listen to the radical wing of their party rather than their constituents. Even heavily Democratic Pueblo CO got rid of their Dem Sen because she advanced the interests of gun control nuts rather than the people of Colorado.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
This simply reveals your lack of understanding on how this stuff works. Switching magazines is quick and easy and can be done with almost no change in the rate of fire with simply a little practice.
It does interfere with citizens who have a legal right to own guns to defend themselves. Your lack of respect for the constitution and the rights of citizens is astounding. Several issues…first and foremost…the second amendment isn’t meant to protect sportsmen…it’s not even primarily designed to allow people to defend themselves…the second amendment was designed to stop government from becoming totalitarian.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
There are two sides to the story, and you’re only hearing the NRA’s version. The methodology has to be in place in any research article that is accepted for publication; it’s the editors job to make sure that it is. If the NRA has a bone to pick, it ought to be with the editors in this respect. And again, the data should be readily available in the Statistical Abstracts or in national databases that are freely available to researchers.Did you read the article?
They did “put up”.
However here are some problems (only a few of many) that the authors you seem to think are rock solid have:
I would call that rather shoddy work from any research group, let alone one using the name of Harvard.
- The authors claimed that they “lost” their data. (that doesn’t even work in grade school does it?)
- They wouldn’t share their methodology with other researchers so that the work could be validated.
- Those researchers that were attempting to approximate the research method in spite of the lack of cooperation from the authors were not able to reproduce the same results or conclusions.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
“Gun control” does NOT prevent gun violence as Chicago shows. Lack of access to guns does not prevent suicide as Japan shows.
P
Peebo
Guest
That can also apply to Republican politicians…when Obama was debating universal background checks Republican politicians were warned by the NRA not to support any ammendments or they would not only lose NRA support but the NRA would put up candidates to oppose them…not one of them supported any ammendment even though ninty percent of Americans supported background checks…so much for listening to their constituents…they cowered down to the NRA because they are spineless…and Democrat politicians are no less spineless…at least the two Colorado politicians had the guts to stand by their convictions even though they knew they would be deafeted…the fact is most politicians are in the pockets of lobby groups…they don’t represent “we the people” they represent “we powerful lobby groups”.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
I am opposed to politicians being schills for the radical wing of their party be they left or right. Your mistake is in thinking the NRA is a radical wing of the republican party…IT IS MAIN STREAM. I wasn’t aware it was noble to govern against the wishes of the people that elected you.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Well, they also pointed out that the law as proposed would have made it a felony for me to allow someone else to fire my gun on a shooting range. Even my kid with me present. There was a lot more to the law than just ‘background checks’
But that’s another thread. The number of laws being pushed through without any serious, detailed and deliberate review and honest debate. Perhaps a well thought out law that was restricted to background checks would have passed.
Similarly, the constituents in Colorado may not have recalled their legislators if those legislators had respected the constituents enough to make a case for the laws they were proposing , and listenedto the constituents concerns and responded to them.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
I read that Personhood USA contacted nearly 20000 in Colorado and told people about Giron and Morse’s pro abortion views.
C
chadair
Guest
post after post as made comments about how “gun control” laws ONLY affect law abiding citizens. facts show that Chicago with the toughest gun laws n the US has the most crime with guns. and yet, u still think the NRA shuould “put up, or shut up”!! how about u showing us some facts that Gun Control stops any drug dealer, or any hardened criminal???
these facts mean NOTHING to Robert. he doesn’t own a gun, so he feels they we shouldn’t have the right as well!
M
Michael57
Guest
I read the article (more like a survey) that you posted from “Harvard”. I pointed out the other side of the story which you seem unaware of in this matter.
You don’t seem interested in discussion of facts, so have a great rest of your day.
- Status