What really matters is how many gun control laws this administration has enacted during its tenure. Can you give us that number?
What really matters is how many gun control laws this administration has enacted during its tenure. Can you give us that number?
I simply disagree with some people's interpretations of the 2nd amendment and don't believe that certain types of weapons are appropriate for civilian ownership.
Nothing makes me think that criminals will suddenly start following the laws. I support the general concept of an AWB for the reason I just listed above, not because I think it'll guarantee criminals won't get their hands on them. Additionally, as I've pretty much stated before, an AWB would only be one part of addressing the problems related to guns in this country.Quote:
Say for the sake of argument, a new AWB is passed much like the Clinton era version, which by the way was a complete and utter failure, what makes you think all of a sudden criminals will now follow the law?
Is it because there is a liberal in the white house and he says so?
You have yet to put any solid evidence, facts or data to back up any statement you have made.
Even with an AWB, there are plenty of other types of guns that criminals can get their hands on and use in the commission of crimes. The best we can probably do is to try things to limit or hinder their ability to get guns and aggressively punish those who have committed crimes using or in possession of a firearm.
Originally Posted by SPFDRum
I get it, you are anti-gun/anti 2nd amendment.
It is similar to the type of argument used during the war in Iraq. If one didn't support the war one was accused of either not supporting the troops, or worse supporting the terrorists/enemy. Never mind that Iraq never attacked the US nor posed a threat to the US.
I've stated repeatedly that I have no problem with gun ownership either. In fact I have no problem with the ownership of semi-auto weapons. I've only submitted that magazine capacity be limited to 10 rounds (since I believe that seconds do indeed count in that type of scenario) and the secondary gun market (aka gun shows) be eliminated.
For that I have been labeled completely anti-gun/anti 2nd amendment.
and data to prove you wrong.
I will admit though SC, your statement of "false decotomy" cracks me up. Especially in light if the mere fact you have yet to produce any evidence that any sort or ban or restrictions have proven effective.
If either one of you, SC or 49 where interested in an honest debate, you would have, at the minimum comment on my quick proposal; "No magazines shall be used that significantly alter the appearance of the fire arm for the purpose of increased bullet capacity".
Nothing, Nada, zip, all the more evidence you are not open for a logical discussion, but only here to spew anti-gun rhetoric.
Semi-auto weapons function just as well with a one shot magazine (plus one in the chamber) as they do with a 100 round (or larger if spring strength allows) magazine.
Maybe, but doing NOTHING, which appears to be your position, will definitely not improve the situation.Quote:
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.
All your plan will do is create a black market for those weapons and turn SOME previously law abiding citizens into criminals, and further, do NOTHING to stop the flow of those weapons to the hard core criminal element.
Ever hear of prohibition? It didn't work either.
Hiding behind semantics is exactly what you are doing when you cite it as reason to not discuss the issue at all.Quote:
If I'm a brainwashed anti-gunner, then you've clearly been brainwashed by the gun lobby.
No, the difference is I can speak on the topic of firearms, firearms nomenclature, and to a greater extent than the anti-gun crowd, firearms law, with knowledge, experience, and facts. I don't need knee jerk, rambling, fed to me, talking points. I don't need to hide behind semantics when you and so many other anti-gunners can't even define the terms you throw around about guns properly and use made up words like assault weapon.
Yeah, she may want to do that, but it won't happen. She simply doesn't have the votes to make it go anywhere. I don't know about the brainwashing part, but I think we probably should look at how we view and think about guns. I think it's quite a leap to think these two people's comments say that F&F was OK.Quote:
The facts are senator feinstein has made no bones about wanting to end private citizens from owning firearms. Attorney general holder has said he believes we must brainwash people into thinking differently about guns. Apparently that means it is okay to illegally supply guns to Mexican drug cartels at the same time you want to disarm American citizens.
And he's openly stated that he'd do stuff related to other issues and didn't. Honestly, I don't have a problem with him making the "threat". Maybe that'll light a fire under congress to seriously address the issue? I'll reserve judgment on following thru on that threat if we get to that point.Quote:
Add to both of those president obama openly stating that if Congress desn't do what he thinks is needed for gun cntrol he will use executive orders to bypass the legislative process.
Correct, but some change can be good even if we don't like it.Quote:
A lot in our world has changed since then.
And not all change is good...
My mind is just fine. Your beef over this particular issue is not with me and I haven't voiced any support for what happened.Quote:
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.
Free your mind, the US government, led by president obama, illegally sold guns to Mexican drug cartels who then used those guns to murder 2 US law enforcement officials as well as many Mexican citizens, some chldren. But apparently we are giving obama and holder a free pass on that.
Yeah I realize that, but that's not my line of thinking. That's just your view. I'm not blaming the manufacturer. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to follow. All guns originally come from manufacturers. If production of the XYZ-3000 was halted, that would have an impact on the availability of the XYZ-3000 to those who sell guns illegally.Quote:
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.
Ah, I got it now, the government is not responsible for selling those guns ILLEGALLY to Mexican CRIMINALS, the firearms manufacturer is responsible because they produced the guns 100% legally. You do realize how completely phukked up that line of thinking is don't you? It is akin to blaming GM for manufacturing cars driven by drunk drivers that kill people. Completely illogical, stupid and baseless. But then again so is most of the anti-gun crowd rhetoric.
I did no such thing. That is exclusively your interpretation.Quote:
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?
You passed the blame to the gun manufacturer in your statement above.
I'm far from delusional and you pretty much hit on my point from a different direction. It's pretty clear to me that she doesn't have sufficient legislative support to get a full ban. To me, she's just putting on a good show.Quote:
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.
That my delusional friend is called DEMOCRACY! The majority, elected by their consitituents and doing what they want, get their position moved forward.
I don't think it's my individual right to actually infringe upon your personal rights. However, I do have the right to advocate for a change in our laws and/or constitution that could (in the opinion of some people) have that effect.Quote:
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.
But it will be because you, and more like you, believe you have the right to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens.
If you are actually presenting the legislation for consideration, then I would agree that specifics are extremely important. However, as I’ve stated several times now, if one person is saying “X” and the correct term is “Y”, but you both know that you are talking about “Z”, then there’s no reason to not have the conversation and include addressing the usage of the wrong term.Quote:
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".
Semantics is EVERYTHING when you are proposing new rules, laws, or legislation. If you can't properly define it how can you regulate it?
No, I was not referring to “law abiding citizens”. I was referring to people (whether criminals or law abiding citizens) purchasing firearms via legal channels and then selling them illegally.Quote:
Where's the flaw?
Your assumption that law abiding citizens are breaking the law and illegally selling their legally purchased rifles.
Exactly because I’ve encountered very, very, very few “pro-gun” people who are willing to entertain the possibility of anything other than no restrictions regarding guns.Quote:
Truthfully, I have no hope of winning over the "pro-gun" side.
Good, because like Don Quixote you would be tlting at windmills.
I know that you didn’t mention sports cars. Your comparison was flawed. We were talking about restricting use of a specific object – “assault weapons” – by all people. A person would still have access to other types of weapons. In other words, anybody can own a “traditional” hunting rifle, but not an AR-15. Your comparison was about restricting an action – driving motor vehicles – by a specific group of people. In other words, non-drunk drivers can drive, but not that much. The correct comparison to what I stated in car terms would be everyone is allowed own a sedan (that “traditional” hunting rifle), but not a sports car (the AR-15).Quote:
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.
Um, I didn't mention sports cars at all. I said restrict all non-drunk drivers from drivng as much.
No, I stated stopping all citizens from being able to legally purchase a specific weapon, would decrease the availability of said weapon for illegal resale – largely due to a decrease or halting of its production. This refers specifically to units of the specific weapon that haven’t been produced yet, not units that are already in circulation. You simply can’t resell the individual firearm that never existed.Quote:
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.
You clearly, and plainly, said stopping law abiding citizens from being able to purchase that gun stops the from being sold illegally.
No, as I stated, I’m disputing whether or not a particular firearm should be available to the private citizen. IMO, restricting the ability to purchase and/or own a specific firearm model is not a violation of your “rights” as you don’t actually have the “right” to own any specific model of firearm. You would still have the right to own firearms, just not certain ones.Quote:
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.
So you admit you want to restrict my rights. Now that is crystal clear.
You disagree, but ultimately neither of us would be the ones making the determination if someone’s rights have been restricted.
I don’t recall saying yours won’t work. I do recall saying that those are not the only 2 areas that we should be discussing to address the problem.Quote:
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
Here is your idea. Restrict law abiding citizens from owning a type of firearm that when legally purchased and owned is used in a miniscule amount of crimes. Sorry NO, I don't wish to discuss your idea when you essentially say mine won't work when in fact it deals with criminals and the mentally ill.
I overlooked responding to it initial, probably because nothing jumped out at me when I read it. Taking another look at it now, it seems kind of convoluted. The issue is magazine capacity, not if it would alter appearance of the weapon. What's wrong with just setting a numerical limit - other than not liking what that number is?
Whether the magazine looks like a banana, pretzel, or a Jackson Pollock painting has no bearing on the action of the weapon itself. As long as it can supply a fresh round after a spent casing has been ejected.
As usual you are attempting to make the argument a false dichotomy.
Please try again.
Post deleted by user.
You see I don't have a problem with someone having a differimg opinion than mine. What I have a problem with is people like you and SC talking about a topic you don't have any technical knowledge of and believing that is okay.