On Sunday, December 6th at 8:00PM EST, President Obama will address the nation from the Oval Office about the steps
our government is taking to fulfill his highest priority: keeping the American people safe. The President will provide an update
on the ongoing investigation into the tragic attack in San Bernardino. The President will also discuss the broader threat of
terrorism, including the nature of the threat, how it has evolved, and how we will defeat it. He will reiterate his firm conviction
that ISIL will be destroyed and that the United States must draw upon our values – our unwavering commitment to justice,
equality and freedom – to prevail over terrorist groups that use violence to advance a destructive ideology.

If you want to get drunk and puke (just watching would do it for me):

Quote from: mauidog on December 05, 2015, 02:22:37 PM

Plenty of time to get those drinking game rules worked out ...  Number of times he says:

I
Me
My

Never heard the bastard say a complete sentence and do not intend to start now.  I successfully shut out Clintoon for eight years, am closing in on the same record with this abject joke.

Hard to confirm if the multiple shots being fired are from a pistol or rifle at the 40 second mark, but assuming that multiple police officers engaged the vehicle at one time, I'm going to go out on a whim and say it was the terrorists firing their rifle.

That being said, I count more than 20 rounds being fired in less than 10 seconds from the same rifle/pistol.

If that is the case, aren't California rifles restricted to 10 rounds via a fixed magazine, as anything more than 10 rounds is defined as high capacity? If true, that would mean the individuals broke the law and altered a legally firearm to increase it's capacity. And aren't pistol magazines restricted to 10 rounds?

Maybe the didn't get the memo that doing that is illegal.

Perfect example of how firearm laws are working to deter criminals and terrorists from breaking the law in California....I feel so much safer knowing that they listen to the rules just like we do 

In one of the interviews the police chief said they found 4 "high capacity" magazines at the shooting scene.

It was reported that both rifles were illegally modded.

Kinda ironic cause they were both reportedly bought legal in Kommiefornia ....bullet buttons later removed.

Damn criminals. Don't they know it's against the law ?

Double edged sword there. That might just cause them to make the argument that the bullet button is ineffective and thus put something more restrictive in place.

You didn't bother to research the shooting, did you?

Oh, crap!  I forgot who I was addressing!!

The rifles were purchased legally, but not by the shooters (straw purchase).

The bullet buttons allowed quicker changes of the 30 rd mags, which are illegal unless dated before the ban was enacted.  That means that even with a more "restrictive" mag release, they had mags that were 3 times the legal capacity, reducing the use of the bullet button to 1/3 the number of times required if using 10rd mags.

The rifles were modified to full auto.

So, assuming the information I have is correct (it changes periodically), these shooters were breaking gun law after gun law.  If you think making another, more restrictive law would have prevented it, you are naive.  Making a receiver unable to become full-auto means they will find a pre-law rifle, mill it to bypass the design, etc.

No law can prevent criminals from bypassing them.

Maybe you don't understand what a double edged sword means in the context of a debate. It refers to an argument or piece of data that can be used for your side but can also be used against your side.

Antis can and will use that argument to suggest more gun control whether you think it makes sense or not.

Take regulation of any kind. You can point and say "look at that, regulations didn't work, we should get rid of them" while they can say "look at that, regulations didn't work, we need new/more regulations" 

All your counter points can really just end up being ammo to use against you. They can apply the same logic and just reverse the argument by saying "we let people have some guns but that didn't work so obviously letting people have guns doesn't work at all"

The crux of the problem is a flaw in your logic. You believe that because A regulation failed that necessarily all regulations will fail. A failure of a regulation does not invalidate the process of regulation altogether. Thus, if a regulation fails you have two possible roads to consider, more regulation or less regulation and this is where the double edged sword comes into play.

Maybe you don't understand what a double edged sword means in the context of a debate. It refers to an argument or piece of data that can be used for your side but can also be used against your side.

Antis can and will use that argument to suggest more gun control whether you think it makes sense or not.

Take regulation of any kind. You can point and say "look at that, regulations didn't work, we should get rid of them" while they can say "look at that, regulations didn't work, we need new/more regulations" 

All your counter points can really just end up being ammo to use against you. They can apply the same logic and just reverse the argument by saying "we let people have some guns but that didn't work so obviously letting people have guns doesn't work at all"

The crux of the problem is a flaw in your logic. You believe that because A regulation failed that necessarily all regulations will fail. A failure of a regulation does not invalidate the process of regulation altogether. Thus, if a regulation fails you have two possible roads to consider, more regulation or less regulation and this is where the double edged sword comes into play.

I coined the term "hoplophobia" in 1962 in response to a perceived need for a word to describe a mental aberration consisting of an

unreasoning terror of gadgetry, specifically, weapons. The most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments

possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user. This is not a reasoned position, but when you point this out to a hoplophobe

he is not impressed because his is an unreasonable position. To convince a man that he is not making sense is not to change his

viewpoint but rather to make an enemy. Thus hoplophobia is a useful word, but as with all words, it should be used correctly.

There is a reason the 2004 Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to expire.  There was no data to demonstrate the ban made any difference whatsoever in violence or deaths by the guns affected by the ban.

This shows that sometimes the Congress gets it right.  They tried to enact controls, evaluated the results, and decided to discontinue the controls.

When you do nothing, and the results are the same as doing more than nothing, it's obvious doing more than nothing is a waste of resources.

Had there been a minor improvement in the statistics, then more control would have been enacted.  If a little gets a little, then more will get us more.  Since that wasn't the case, it was impossible to justify continuing the controls, much less additional controls.

Same for this situation.  If the California rules are not stopping criminals from doing what these terrorists did, just like having no laws would have done, then there is no justification for doing more.

More laws will only affect the law abiding -- the same people following today's laws.  New laws would be just as ineffective controlling criminals.

The conclusion is inescapable.  There's no evidence existing laws prevented anything, now or in the past.  There's no double-edged sword if the people considering more legislation have half a brain.

What you still refuse to consider is these people are not going to agree with anything that avoids gun control.  They have an agenda.  They are not interested in actual solutions short of an all out ban.  Worrying about giving therm ammunition is a waste of energy, since they really don't need ammunition to push their agenda.

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE:


Plenty of time to get those drinking game rules worked out ...  Number of times he says:

Common Sense
Gun Violence
Gun Laws
Assault Weapon
Guns/Firearms
Radical Islamic Extremists
Religion of Peace
etc ...

While you are right about the studies showing no significant effect of the assault weapons ban, that isn't the only reason it wasn't renewed. Had democrats controlled congress when it was set to expire you might have seen a different result.