Small correction: you’re wrong. Indeed, petitions to repeal the 1st amendment are entirely a right wing movement. True, it was a lame attempt to say, “Look how dumb the left is!” based on the age-old trick of selective editing to find the dumbest people you can find. But that’s what it was. No leftist that I know of has ever circulated such a petition.
Back to your regularly scheduled defense of a particular and highly controversial reading of the second amendment.
A handgun ban is not going to be feasible at all, politically or otherwise. Heller and McDonald specifically protected handguns. That’s even more DOA than another Assault Weapons Ban, which doesn’t stand a chance.
Not sure what good this would do but here is the link for Model legislation
Based on James Madison’s advice, validated by the Supreme Court with the anti commandeering legal doctrine, bans all state and local employees and resources from providing material support to the enforcement of federal acts on firearms,accessories, and ammo.
It’s all there if so inclined. You will have to enter the appropriate HR applicable to your state
Its like banning red cars. How many fewer drivers do you think there will be?
Its like banning murder, we still have murder!
I’d say a better analogy would be if one was concerned about the massive number of deaths due to alcohol, one decided that the thing to do would be to ban red wine coolers. THAT would certainly be the ticket, and every wine cooler banned helps, right? 
Red wine coolers have other uses that’s not killing its users. Guns don’t. Its perfectly logical to try and ban or restrict guns to reduce gun deaths. Its not logical to restrict or ban red wine coolers to prevent wine deaths.
guns have no purpose beyond killing their users?
sigh…you really need to take a nap.
Killing. Unless you use it as the world’s dumbest paper weight
or hunt, or target shoot.
Are you being deliberately stubborn on this?? It’s an ANALOGY. Besides, you are making a sweeping claim that is a judgement call on your part. YOU think that red wine coolers have other purposes (like what, exactly) while guns don’t, but that’s purely your opinion and judgement.
And no, it’s not logical to ban red wine coolers to prevent alcohol deaths since it wouldn’t have a meaningful effect on the numbers of dead due to alcohol…just like it’s not meaningful to ban certain guns because they look scary, since the exact same calibers of guns that don’t look scary are still available, so in effect you’ve done nothing except make the anti-red wine cooler/scary guns folks feel good. That’s why the proposal is so stupid and useless and why people who actually know anything about this subject roll their eyes when the gun banner side brings it up again.
Oh, I don’t roll my eyes. I’m glad. I hope Yog and everyone in the Democratic Party keeps bringing it up. Hey, go all in and base their campaigns on repealing the 2nd amendment. They should watch out for the briar patch on their way.
That’s silly. Banning one type of gun (particularly one that accounts for such a tiny sliver of gun deaths) is going to do nothing.
Saying that banning assault weapons is like banning red cars is NOTHING like saying that we shouldn’t bother banning murder because people will still murder.
Perhaps you don’t understand your own arguments.
As a Democrat, I think this is a horrible idea. Virginia could have a Democratic state senate right now (which means we could have gotten Medicaid expansion and a whole host of other real low hanging fruit) but we don’t because gun control became an issue. We basically threw away our entire centrist Democratic agenda in order to make a few gun control fanatics happy. And the worst part is that we were never going to actually pass any significant gun control restrictions, we just threw away the opportunity to get health care for the working poor so that some limousine liberals could say they fought the good fight on gun control. Sad. Really Sad.
That’s why I included the option of restricting guns. You go to the mini-golf course and borrow a club, I’ve gone to shooting ranges and rented a gun. No reason you can’t do the same. I am actually fine with restrictions on assault weapons (and don’t get into a sidetrack about the definition of “assault weapons” please) and handguns and less on long guns.
The analogy is weak, I’m pointing that out. This appears every time there’s a gun discussion. I’ll just get it out of the way now.
“The reason why we don’t ban alcohol, swimming pools, cars, knives, ice picks, crowbars, cigarettes, etc. is because unlike guns, the is a lot of ways to use those items safely that doesn’t result in injury. Those items also have many, non-injurious uses. Knives can be used to cut food. Cars can be driven to take you from Point A to Point B and Point C on weekends. On the other hands, guns are only used for shooting. Yes, sometimes the target is legitimate, like hunting or target shooting, but it is too often used for killing another person. The negative result of tens of thousands of deaths far outweigh the relatively small benefit of being able to kill a bear on your property or practice shooting plates out of the air for the next Olympics. Therefore, guns for personal use should be restricted. There’s no legitimate reason one should have an assault weapon and there are far safer options than for you to own a handgun for protection.”
You know I hear this often but as far as I know, it only applies to me. I’m sick and tired of the pro-gun lobby pretending there’s this vast conspiracy who wants to ban guns that they are fighting to stop. There is no legitimate gun ban segment of the population. None exist in power. Name me one current elected official to a national position that wants to ban all guns. This boogeyman doesn’t exist. The fight is between people who favor absolutely no restrictions (The NRA and GOP, of course except when it comes to immigrants owning guns) and those who want gun regulations
There’s no gun banners in government, get over yourselves. You don’t get to argue the straw man of the most extreme opposition and pretend you yourselves are reasonable.
The problem isn’t banning one type of gun to make a dent in the murder rate. The problem is there is absolutely no gun ban of any type. Start small, then we can do more to turn back the tide
You think the analogy is weak because, obviously, you don’t understand it. Plain and simple.
And yet several of the things on your list actually result in more deaths than guns do. How do you reconcile that? Also, it’s, again, YOUR opinion that guns have no other use than to kill while those other things have an obvious use and value to society. As to it coming up in every discussion, perhaps it comes up because even though you dismiss it with a hand wave it’s actually a valid point.
You jumped the shark. We were discussing the reincarnation of the AWB here. Try and stay focused and not bring in all of your baggage or strawmen of positions I don’t have.
I can name the strawmen you’ve used, can you do the same? We were, again, talking about actual, real legislation proposed and discussing how stupid it is/was. Where is the strawman? You on the other hand were going on about the NRA, GOP, immigrants owning guns and all sorts of babble that has zero to do with anything I said.
And what about wanting a handgun for self defense?
Really, what is a better option for self defense than a gun?
So the NRA represents the pro-gun side of the debate and the gun control side of the debate is NOT the Brady Center?
I don’t think wide scale gun bans are possible but I am pretty sure this is due to the impotence of the gun control side not their lack of desire.
See, this sounds like banning one type of gun is just the beginning of banning more types of guns until you have banned them all. Gun bans especially assault weapon bans are stupid, they don’t do much more than make gun control folks feel all warm and fuzzy.
I guess you thought you were saving yourself by including the word “all” in there. I’m pretty sure everyone knows that plenty of people and politicians, usually Democrats, would love to ban guns. Some want to ban “assault weapons”. Others want to ban “semi-auto guns”, other still would like to see handguns banned.
We’ve got state-level bans on various types of guns (usually “assault weapons” or 50-cals), federal bans on post-'86 full autos, federal bans on importing “non-sporting guns”, etc. It’s utterly wrong to claim we’ve got “absolutely no gun ban of any type”.
Again, you mix up a ban on certain things, with a blanket ban on all firearms. Most folk don’t want a blanket ban on firearms but don’t want to see full automatic weapons, machine guns, military grade weapons (versus those scary looking “assault weapons” that merely kinda sorta cosmetically look like military grade but are essentially just a long gun), etc. And doesn’t the US of A manufacture enough guns that there is a real need to import “non-sporting guns”?
You call it a slippery slope. I call it a fallacy. YMMV
And I’m coming to learn that “assault weapons” is such a red herring. Hats off to the NRA for making sure that’s the common nomenclature. You get those that want to limit some firearms completely rat holing on “assault weapons” instead of focusing on handguns that are responsible for the vast number of firearm related deaths in the US.
I’m pretty sure “assault weapons” is a term primarily used by the Brady campaign.