Are you sure most Americans want it? If not, that’s a pretty good reason. I honestly don’t know. Do you?
Would it matter? What’s the actual difference? I’m asking because I don’t know. 100 rounds a minute for a semi and 500 for a fully automatic? Something like that?
Um, no it’s not. Initially, most Americans disagreed with the civil rights movement. Fifty years ago, most Americans didn’t agree with mixed-raced marriages. Twenty years ago, most Americans didn’t agree with making smoking illegal in public places.
I’m sure most Americans would want to drive any speed they want. We don’t do that, because traffic regulations keep everyone safe.
With an inexpensive trigger crank added to your semi-automatic rifle you can shoot a lot faster than 100 rounds per minute (some speculate that the Las Vegas shooter may have had this on some guns but so far it is just guesses since it the details have not been released by police).
Constitutional issues are not decided by a simple majority. You’re proposing a new law, which is decided by a simple majority. So no, if most people don’t want this law, then that’s a good reason to not implement it. Unless you have some problem with democracy. I’m sure you have lots of ideas about how to improve society. Thankfully, you are not in charge.
I’m sure you’re just making that shit up.
I feel neutral on this, however I’d say this requirement wouldn’t hinder a mass-shooter in the slightest degree.
Probably not. But it would hinder / prevent thousands of other deaths. Isn’t that a good enough place to start?
GALLUP: Should smoking in all public places be made totally illegal, or not?
2001 Jul: Yes: 39% No: 60%
2003 Jul: Yes: 31% No: 68%
2005 Jul: Yes: 39% No: 60%
Some laws are passed, of course, even though the vast majority of people are indifferent. And in any event, since a majority of Americans say they are in favor of some form of gun control - and this barely qualifies as ‘gun control’; it merely makes them safer - yes, it seems like a pretty good idea to implement. I’m pretty sure gun makers could implement it tomorrow if they wanted, no law required.
I think it would matter in the initial seconds – an automatic burst into a crowd would, presumably, kill and injure many more people in the initial chaos before it disperses than several semi-automatic shots. After that, there may not be much of a difference.
Actually it turns out one company is already selling something similar.
I SAID it was poorly worded. 
Perhaps someone could create a NEW poll, with bettering of the words and such. Preferably not drunk when they create it.
So there’s potential for interference. And yet it’s being sold.
From the picture, it’s obviously not suited for concealed carry.
Very limited compatibility.
Nothing but 5-star testimonials on website.
There’s no figure on failure rate.
…said by a fictional character, written by an author very early in his career, and oft repeated by many without any evidence to back it up.
Corollary: our inner cities during the 1980s and 1990s should have been some of the most polite places on earth.
“what happened in Las Vegas is in many ways a miracle.” - Trump
I like miracles that don’t leave dozens dead and hundreds wounded.
Last evening I perused the internet for a while in my morbid curiosity about how truly deplorable some of my fellow citizens are. And I came to a purely anecdotal conclusion that the real gun fanatics are incapable of considering a middle position. They immediately jump to “liberals want to take my guns!” and there is nothing – nothing – that will talk them down from that position. Apparently, if one single person is denied access to a gun, the next day all guns will be confiscated. How do you ever reach any consensus on gun laws when the powers-that-be constantly stoke that fear?
So why didn’t He perform a miracle that didn’t leave dozens dead and hundreds wounded?
Yeah, you’re right. Clearly this first attempt isn’t PERFECT, so let’s just give up.
:rolleyes:
Fucking piece of shit, you are.
Mr. Trump’s one and only Tweet of the day (guess he had to make his plane):
Could someone who speaks Trump kindly explain what the fuck he’s talking about?
Even on this board, we’re “gun grabbers” to the pro-gun types here.
I’m hardly at that point, but there’s a part of me that asks: if we actually advocated taking their guns, what accusations could they throw at us that they’re not already saying?
I guess they could say, “see, we were right all along!” but no. They’ve been lying all along. We might ultimately make their lies true, if we get fed-up enough, but their lies now and in the past are still lies.