Exactly, it doesn't. So passing a law that says you can't buy an AR-15 is not taking any right away from you unless AR-15s are the only guns on the market.
Originally Posted by FyredUp
Right, reducing the number of guns available that could easily be used in illegal guns sales is just "feel good nonsense".
How can that possibly be even remotely ridiculous? Your acknowledgement that a ban would have prevented the sale of additional firearms in this category proves that a ban would be productive in preventing more of these weapons from hitting the streets.
It is ridiculous because as you admitted above you would be restricting the rights of law abiding, innocent gun owners and in reality doing nothing but feel good nonsense.
I'm sure you'll respond to this with a rant about semantics, but I'll say it anyway. You assumed that the intent of what I stated was to stop illegal gun sales as in ALL gun sales. I'm not foolish enough to think that any illegal activity can be fully stopped. As such, the goal would not be to eliminate ALL illegal sales, but rather reduce them. I admit that I would support the restricting of ALL citizens from privately owning specific types of weapons. However, I did not say that it would "essentially do NOTHING to stop the flow of illegal guns into the hands of criminals". That was purely your assertion because I was only discussing a segment of firearms currently available. I'm simply saying that it would stop some illegal gun sales of these particular weapons. That is certainly more than just NOTHING.
Yes, it won't stop ALL illegal sales and possession of firearms, but it wouldn't be intended to.
Did you reread this gem before you posted it? You would support a law restricting law abiding citizens from possessing a type of firearm and you freely admit it would essentially do NOTHING to stop the flow of illegal guns into the hands of criminals that, gosh darn it all, actually commits the crimes. So ineffect you want to disarm a segment of the society to make them easier prey for the illegal segment of society you admit you can't disarm. WOW! You are a seriously brainwashed anti-gunner.
If I'm a brainwashed anti-gunner, then you've clearly been brainwashed by the gun lobby.
Obama didn't directly spur that spike in sales. It was a direct result of people in the gun crowd making people think that Obama was going to come take their guns away. He never said he was going to that and it never happened. The same thing happened leading up to re-election. He didn't run on gun control and it wasn't on the short list of priorities for the second term until Sandy Hook happened. My grip is just fine thanks and I haven't been drinking the kool-aid. As I stated, I'm in the middle on this issue.
You shouldn't discount the efforts of the gun crowd on the increase in ownership. They did a pretty good job of working people up into a frenzy over a threat that really wasn't there on the level they asserted.
Woking them up into a frenzy? Really? The threat of draconian gun laws and a President essentially flipping the bird to proper procedure and saying I'll do this by executive order if I have to wasn't enough on its own? Get a grip and stop guzzling the anti-gun kool-aid. Obama spurred a massive spike in gun purchases the first time he was elected and golly he did it again with his rhetoric.
A lot in our world has changed since then.
That may be good enough for you, but there's a good chance it won't get you very far in the discussion that is trying to take place.
Actually it was good enough for the Founding Fathers.
I can't offer an explanation for what happened because I had nothing to do with it and have no idea what they were thinking. To think I would be able to explain that mess is absurd.
I can't offer an explanation regarding what happened with that, but it isn't really relevant to the point. Regardless of who physically puts the weapons in the hands of the gun runners and criminals, they all originally came from a manufacturer. If the weapon isn't manufactured, then it can't be sold illegally.
Why can't you offer an explanation. The federal government, under the leadership of President Obama and the Attorney General operated an illegal gun smuggling ring to supply actual assault rifles to Mexican drug cartels. those weaons were in turn used to kill2 US law enforcement officers and in numerous other violent crimes and murder both in Mexico and the US. So before you preach about keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding American citizens ask why your President seems okay with giving weapons to criminals.
No, you simply didn't understand what I said. I didn't say that it didn't matter where they came from. I said that regardless of how they were obtained, all guns originate from a manufacturer. Big difference. The gun that isn't manufactured is the gun that can't be illegally sold and used for a crime.
Your idiotic response that it doesn't matter where they came from simply shows how out of touch and brain washed you are. You want to stop the manufacturers but have no issue at all with the federal government supplying weapons to criminals. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.
Where did I even remotely indicate that I don't have a problem with the federal government supplying guns to criminals? Maybe you should put down your glass of kool-aid?
Right, because every elected official that expressed an extreme view or position on an issue has never been out voted by the majority of ones that don't share that same extreme position.
No, not necessarily. We aren't talking about stopping access to all guns, just specific ones.
When you have people like senator feinstein and attorney general holder openly calling for elimination of private ownership of firearms it doesn't take much to see where this is all headed if they get there way. Who are you to tell me that I can't own a semi-automatic AR-15 if I want one?
Who am I? I'm nobody to tell you that you can't own one. If your ability to own one changes, it won't because I decided it should be that way.
Wasn't playing games. Just clarifying the definition in use.
Who's playing games?
You with the law abiding citizen question and your reciting from the anti-gun propaganda. Sorry, we don't buy the give this much and we will leave the rest alone nonsense anymore.
If you (as in the gun crowd) truly were hearing the message loud and clear, then you wouldn't be bitching about semantics and maybe you'd actually have a response other than yelling "2nd Amendment" and "because I want one".
A primary problem with the "pro-gun" position is thinking that the "anti-gun position is ALL about semantics" and being too busy talking about the 2nd Amendment to truly hear the message from the other side of the issue.
Oh we hear you loud and clear. Believe me and that is why people are angry and notgoing to roll over and play dead this time. Semantics and game playing and outright deception is all the anti-gun side has ever had.
So then you admit that what you stated about blame wasn't true?
Yes, those two item have been a problem and that needs rectified, but NOBODY is blaming innocent people for the evil deeds of other people.
No, but you hope to punish them by adding new restrictions to their firearms rights.
Where's the flaw?
The more of these weapons that we put on the streets, the more we increase the ability for them to fall into the wrong hands thru black market sales and straw purchases.
And with that flawed logic you hope to win pro-gun people to your side. Not a chance.
Truthfully, I have no hope of winning over the "pro-gun" side.
It's really not the same thing. You are talking about actually restricting the person's ability to drive altogether rather than just restricting them from driving sports cars.
Drunk drivers kill more people in a year than guns do. I think we should restrict the driving privilieges of everyone never convicted of drunk driving. IF they are require to drive far less then there are far fewer opportunites for driving drunk. Punish the innocent while realizing we simply can't truly stop all drunk drivers so we don't intend to. Same flawed logic as your gun control scheme.
I agree with this, but I don't think that fully addresses the issue.
So what's your solution?
I have listed them before. Mandatory, non-plea bargainable sentences for gun crimes, fix the mental health care system in this country, a better background check to show criminal history AND if treated for mental illness.
No, that's just your biased interpretation. I'm in no way saying that the majority of gun owners are doing this, but it's clearly not an infrequent thing. If you want those statistics, then go look them up for yourself.
Right, that's why the best we can do is take action that primarily serves to curb at least some of that behavior. If people can't buy a particular weapon in the first place, then they can't illegally sell it. If we seriously punish illegal gun sales, then hopefully it'll reduce them because those people would be in prison for a period of time and maybe it'll deter others from following suit.
You make it sound like the majority of gun owers are illegally selling legally ourchased forearms to criminals. Let's see some statistics to support that. otherwise this is just more non-supportable anti-gun rights propaganda.
No, I'm not saying that at all, which is probably why it's clear as mud for you. I'm essentially disputing whether or not a particular firearm should be legal to be purchased and owned by a private citizen.
The issue of "access" has to be part of the discussion because it's part of the overall problem. If criminals and crazy people didn't have access to firearms, then we wouldn't need to discuss it and they do obtain them thru legal channels. A straw purchase is essentially a legal purchase during the initial purchase process and then becomes illegal once the firearm changes hands. That's how the guy up in NY that shot those firefighters got those weapons.
As I stated, we won't be able to stop them all.
Okay so again you just want to deter law abiding citizens from buying a legal to own firearm. Gotcha, clear as mud.
Just because you don't like my ideas doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be discussed. Again, it's your assertion that I'm saying that.
I agree we need to stop "jagging around" on the issue, but that includes discussing access to firearms.
No we don't if it means your idea of discussing that means to infringe upon my rights while openly admitting the BS you propose will do virtually nothing to prevent criminals from getting and using guns in violent crimes.