100K Challenge

[turok]

I'll take that bet.

43 tweets and none in a year.

 

[Gulo Blue]

how much is a typical hand gun or AR-15 that people panic buy? I've never tried to buy a gun so I have no idea - I imagine the range is quite wide but I would assume the most popular guns are probably somewhere on the lower to middle of that range.

I saw a gun dealing/customization show once where I think AR-15s were $1,000-$1,500, and skys the limit depending on the artistry you want on it.

 

[sggatecl]

how much is a typical hand gun or AR-15 that people panic buy? I've never tried to buy a gun so I have no idea - I imagine the range is quite wide but I would assume the most popular guns are probably somewhere on the lower to middle of that range.

Handguns start around $250-300 and can creep up to around $1000. AR-15 start around $450-650.

It varies quite a bit, especially when sales are private. Prices can certainly dip lower than that if conditions are right.

You sure it's smart to rib a guy like that?

 

[turok]

Deerfield Illinois banned assault weapons and instituted a fine of up to $1,000/day if owners don't forfeit their guns. To say that the only politician to ever voice such a thing is categorically false.

It's legitimately delusional to think for a second that the NRA would have been silent about Trump confiscating guns without due process.

" except if the weapon is "broken down in a non-functioning state," is "not immediately accessible to any person," or is "unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card."

That pertains to assault weapons only, and is NOT banning or forcing forfeiture of their guns....liar.

I posted that Trump proposed taking the guns from suspects w/o due process, and the video of him saying so was embed on many news websites.

 

[Spartanmack]

" except if the weapon is "broken down in a non-functioning state," is "not immediately accessible to any person," or is "unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card."

That pertains to assault weapons only, and is NOT forcing forfeiture of their guns....liar.

I notice you conveniently left out the bit about turning it in or... and Clinton and Obama calling for an Australian type program. before you accuse me of being a liar, maybe you should google "politician gun confiscation quotes" If you're too lazy, I'd be happy to post a few later to further prove you're the liar.

 

[Mitchrapp]

 

[Michchamp]

it's not bait!

When I'm at the gun shop or the range, I keep my mouth shut, and my opinions to myself.

In my experience, about 3/4 of all gun people out there are nutty (as I expected).

 

[Spartanmack]

I saw a gun dealing/customization show once where I think AR-15s were $1,000-$1,500, and skys the limit depending on the artistry you want on it.

I saw a show that was like those shows where they build custom cars or motorcycles but for guns. It caught my eye as I was flipping through channels because they were showcasing antique guns with custom etchings all done by hand - it was pretty amazing how elaborate the work was. Some of them were worth 10s of thousands of $s. They did something similar building a custom gun using some prefab parts and a C&C machine for the customization. It didn't seem as cool as the hand carved stuff though.

 

[Michchamp]

she has good trigger finger discipline. too often when you see people pose with guns, they have their finger on the trigger. bad form.

 

[Spartanmack]

43 tweets and none in a year.

how many to gun control advocacy groups?

 

[turok]

how many to gun control advocacy groups?

None

 

[Mitchrapp]

she has good trigger finger discipline. too often when you see people pose with guns, they have their finger on the trigger. bad form.

That's nice to know.

 

[turok]

I notice you conveniently left out the bit about turning it in or... and Clinton and Obama calling for an Australian type program. before you accuse me of being a liar, maybe you should google "politician gun confiscation quotes" If you're too lazy, I'd be happy to post a few later to further prove you're the liar.

Neither Obama or Clinton proposed taking peoples guns away w/o due process, and unlike what Trump flatly stated w/o any "buyback" program involved for unregistered firearms. Of course the NRA painted their statements in "slippery-slope" terms to serve their agenda.

And if assault rifle owners are going to refuse to abide by the law, then they are law-breakers, subject to confiscation and fines due to non-compliance. Why would they "turn them in" if they are going to ignore the law's requirements to begin with?

I didn't always wear seat belts until doing so became law, and I don't thumb my nose at the law just b/c there are now air-bags installed in vehicles for supposedly added protection.

"Lazy" is using the same SN or username everywhere in the interwebz...makes it waaay too easy to be tracked and hacked. However, using one's actual first and/or surname or email addy is even worse. But the worst of the worst is using the same password everywhere, especially if it is just a short dictionary or alphanumeric word w/o symbols.

 

[Spartanmack]

None

so i guess you were wrong then...

 

[turok]

so i guess you were wrong then...

What are you guessing that I was wrong about?

Not that I would expect you to guess that he was wrong, of course.

 

[Spartanmack]

Nevertheless, the NRA represents the wishes of an oppressed minority.

Can't we all see everyone is out to take their guns?

The only politician to ever voice such a thing was Donald J. Trump, when he proposed taking guns from suspects w/o due process.

The sheer hypocrisy of that, is what the reaction to that was by the NRA, (*crickets*) vs how they would have, if Obama or Hillary Clinton had done so.

Neither Obama or Clinton proposed taking peoples guns away w/o due process, and unlike what Trump flatly stated w/o any "buyback" program involved for unregistered firearms. Of course the NRA painted their statements in "slippery-slope" terms to serve their agenda.

And if assault rifle owners are going to refuse to abide by the law, then they are law-breakers, subject to confiscation and fines due to non-compliance. Why would they "turn them in" if they are going to ignore the law's requirements to begin with?

I didn't always wear seat belts until doing so became law, and I don't thumb my nose at the law just b/c there are now air-bags installed in vehicles for supposedly added protection.

"Lazy" is using the same SN or username everywhere in the interwebz...makes it waaay too easy to be tracked and hacked. However, using one's actual first and/or surname or email addy is even worse. But the worst of the worst is using the same password everywhere, especially if it is just a short dictionary or alphanumeric word w/o symbols.

the original post made no mention of due process, why is that a qualifier now? Even if it is, do you think a mandatory buy back like the one in Australia is "due process"? It's not.

Also, here are some quotes from Diane Feinstein (pictured below - she's a politician, in case you were wondering)...

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

“If I could have gotten...an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

Here are some more...

“I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.” Michael Dukakis

“We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.” Rahm Emanuel

“The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take…we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases.” U.S. Representative William Clay

“I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.” Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

“People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed.” Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013

“No one in this country should have guns.” Superior Court Judge, Robert C. Brunetti, Bristol, CT. September, 2013

“My bill … establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns.” U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

Here's Barack Obama, technically before he was a politician but that arguably indicates his true feelings about guns...

“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

Some of these quotes don't specifically mention due process but I think it's safe to say you're wrong, plenty of politicians have advocated for taking guns away from people.

 

[Spartanmack]

What are you guessing that I was wrong about?

Not that I would expect you to guess that he was wrong, of course.

your bet about what I did on twitter. It's not really a guess though. Do you think I care that you could find my twitter account? Guess what, I use the same name on my FB account too which I use almost as much as I use Twitter. Feel free to read that too.

 

[turok]

Banning guns and invasibly or forcibly taking them away w/o due process or a SCOTUS decision or a bill to do so by Congress and signed into law by a POTUS are two entirely different things. As is conservatives, independents, and liberals interpretation of the Second Amendment, which was conceived by our forefathers long before weapons using gunpowder became more than merely an iron ball tamped down into the barrel of a musket, flintlock, or cannon.

They were aware that all but cannon would or could be used to hunt game, but included the phrase "well regulated militia" so that the states and their cities and townsfolk could readily defend themselves against foreign invaders and New World natives' potential uprisings. It was not written so that individuals and families would or could become a heavily armed and militarized force unto themselves.

No private citizen should own or possess or require any type of WMD, whether legally manufactured or illegally created specifically for the purpose of causing mass casualties. Your previous contention of their need to defend against government tyranny is laughable, especially since you yourself do not own any firearms, so obviously you really don't take that ominous and everpresent "threat" very seriously.

If ammosexuals insist that they would live in constant fear for their and/or their families' security and safety, and would be deprived of their Second Amendment "rights", then I would have no problem with them forming or joining a "well-regulated" militia within their state or community for that purpose, including the use of and practice with semi-auto assault weapons, which would be properly and securely kept in a locked and alarmed room within a locked and guarded/patrolled building designated for that purpose.

 

[Polish-Hammer]

The British are coming, the British are coming.

 

[tomdalton22]

Banning guns and invasibly or forcibly taking them away w/o due process or a SCOTUS decision or a bill to do so by Congress and signed into law by a POTUS are two entirely different things. As is conservatives, independents, and liberals interpretation of the Second Amendment, which was conceived by our forefathers long before weapons using gunpowder became more than merely an iron ball tamped down into the barrel of a musket, flintlock, or cannon.

They were aware that all but cannon would or could be used to hunt game, but included the phrase "well regulated militia" so that the states and their cities and townsfolk could readily defend themselves against foreign invaders and New World natives' potential uprisings. It was not written so that individuals and families would or could become a heavily armed and militarized force unto themselves.

No private citizen should own or possess or require any type of WMD, whether legally manufactured or illegally created specifically for the purpose of causing mass casualties. Your previous contention of their need to defend against government tyranny is laughable, especially since you yourself do not own any firearms, so obviously you really don't take that ominous and everpresent "threat" very seriously.

If ammosexuals insist that they would live in constant fear for their and/or their families' security and safety, and would be deprived of their Second Amendment "rights", then I would have no problem with them forming or joining a "well-regulated" militia within their state or community for that purpose, including the use of and practice with semi-auto assault weapons, which would be properly and securely kept in a locked and alarmed room within a locked and guarded/patrolled building designated for that purpose.

so you don't feel it's within someone's right to protect his house and family from outside intruders?