Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The anti-gun freaks who preach "common sense" demonstrate that obviously sense is not that common. Federally mandated background checks were tried by the anti-gun freaks in 1993 with the Brady Bill. The Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional in Mack and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), and they tossed that provision out of the Brady Bill. So unless Congress is willing to pay for absolutely every background check they mandate, it will never happen.
There is no sense whatsoever, common or otherwise, to limit magazine capacity. That has to be the dumbest thing ever suggested by anyone.
Nothing being proposed by any of the anti-gun freaks will do anything to improve firearm safety or reduce the amount of firearm crime. The ONLY reason they make these proposals is to further restrict and limit access to firearms for the law-abiding.
So when they claim "I do not want to ban your firearms" what they are really saying is "I just want to make it impossible for you to buy, sell, own, or possess a firearm."
a month ago, the liberals were all talking about how awesome Austrailia is now that they have a harsh gun ban.
Now they are all saying "we dont want to take your guns, we are REASONABLE"
What does still bother me is why I cant get one gun grabber to have a discussion about the reasons they want to ban assault weapons and high capacity mags.
a month ago, the liberals were all talking about how awesome Austrailia is now that they have a harsh gun ban.
Now they are all saying "we dont want to take your guns, we are REASONABLE"
What does still bother me is why I cant get one gun grabber to have a discussion about the reasons they want to ban assault weapons and high capacity mags.
NOT ONE will tell me why they want to do that.
The anti gun people should just be honest with themselves and the gun enthusiasts and come right out and say we want a ban on all bolt action, clip fed, mag fed rifle and or shotgun along with any semi auto mag fed handgun. Instead they suger coated so they feel like they are helping society without hurting anyone's feelings (you know PC) and say we want to ban any semi auto clip fed, mag fed rifle and shotgun that also has one military characteristic because it's scary looking. They ignore bolt action rifles because well it wasn't in the latest Expendables movie or the Call of Duty video game and they aren't scary. And we also want to ban any semi auto handgun that can be fed by a mag with more than a 10 round capacity (7 if your in NY)
So they say they don't want to "ban all firearms" but place restrictions that pretty much ban thousands of firearms for no reason. But they feel good about it because in their minds they aren't banning anything but the "bad" ones.
I'm not adamantly opposed to #3 but it won't make much difference. Criminals don't get their guns from gun shows. They get them from straw buyers and corrupt dealers.
So did that happen after the Assualt Weapons ban in 1994?
In this country the population wouldn't stand for an outright ban right away...they have to make it small steps at a time...commit false flag attacks get the sheeple scared so they start supporting it.
A common theme in recent discussions here on CD is that those against new common sense gun safety laws want those who support the laws to ADMIT that they really want all guns banned.
I don't want all guns banned. I have met very, very few who do.
This is another instance where the right wing is fighting the caricature of a liberal spoon fed to them by the right wing media and internet echo chamber-- instead of the real opposition.
The real opposition seems to want three things:
1) Ban in assault style weapons (yes, I know this term needs to be better defined)
2) Limit on magazine capacity
3) Comprehensive Background checks on all purchasers
That's it. If you're against those three things-- fine. But railing against people who want to "ban all guns-- but won't admit it" only retards the debate and makes you look foolish.
Part of the problem with this entire discussion is the #1 and #2 will have no meaningful impact whatsoever on gun violence. Assault weapons (using the definition of semiautomatic military style rifle) are only used in a small number of crimes. The previous ten year ban did absolutely nothing to the homicide rate or the incidence of spree killings. Semiautomatic rifles that not military style are just as capable of killing as the AR style rifles. A semiautomatic pistol can fire just about as quickly as a rifle, if less accurately.
Magazine capacity - another "won't make a difference" change. If Adam Lanza's gun of choice had magazines with only 10 cartridges he would have been just as lethal.
I see #3 as minimally useful, but could help in prosecuting those who use firearms in crimes.
As I see it - the only way to realistically reduce gun violence in the USA is to remove all 300+ million firearms from existence. That can't happen. Unlike other countries where buybacks or takeaways occurred, the USA has legal protection/precedent for gun ownership. And centuries of culture.
So why are gun control advocates (I think you are one) so focused on #1 and #2? Do you, as an educated person capable of looking at data, really believe they will make a difference? Criminals will always have guns.
There are ways around it. Private transactions, gun shows sales in some states. By comprehensive I mean that no legal sale is completed without the purchaser passing a background check.
This wont work without a national gun registry. How else is Obama going to know if I sell my gun to you in a private sale?
So you must be for registration of all firearms?
You do know that criminals don't register firearms?
Another lesson in futility.
Gun control advocates are so desperate to "do something" - that they back legislation of any kind.
I'd like to reduce gun violence too. But I have not see a single gun control proposal from Wash DC (or anywhere else) that is likely to even make a statistical difference.
There is plenty of gun law which is never enforced.
The NUMBER 2 man in the Az ATF bought his duty side arm illegally and not a thing was done about it......
No more new LAW will be enforced any better than the 10 zillion other guns laws we already have.
It isn't about the legal law abiding gun owners. It is about the failed system, that does not evidently can not and just plain will not enforce any laws at all.....
So yeah waste time and money of the creation of more 'New' Law that won't stop crime, but will indeed Infringe on the Law Abiding, meanwhile not doing one thing to bother any criminals.
Just Stupidity......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Law that won't stop crime, but will indeed Infringe on the Law Abiding, meanwhile not doing one thing to bother any criminals.
