Yeah, I just caught that. Whoops! Traded the 9 for the .40 (cops around here have switched and I went with them - regret it too, the 9 was easier for the wife to shoot). Heh. A 40mm would be…scary.
When you have very few guns to begin with, banning the rest is going to have an incremental effect. Pistols have essentially been outlawed since 1903 in the UK.
Look, I’m on your side (more or less), but trying to equate a total gun ban in a society with very few guns to begin with is not equivalent to the US and shouldn’t be considered a valid case study (for or against).
I don’t think so. The 1903 act was completely toothless. The serious restrictions started in 1960. The really restrictive law was only enacted in 1988. And of course the near-total ban in 1996.
If the total ban has no effect whatsoever, why institute it?
Illegal sales were permitted to cartel gun runners. The shop owners made the sales at the direction of the BATFE. The firearms were tracked to the Mexican border but Holder’s/Obama’s people never notified the Mexican government that these firearms were coming. How were these firarms supposed to be tracked in Mexico if the Mexican government didn’t know they were coming?
When the firearms were discovered, in Mexico AND back in the U.S. (to murder U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, Holder/Obama/elected Democrats then demanded tougher gun laws to prevent this type of gun trafficing in the future. All that’s currently needed to prevent this type of gun-running is for Obama/Holder/BATFE to actually enforce current laws instead of overriding them.
The DOJ’s “report” was limited by Obama’s issuing an Executive Order to protect those involved (including Obama and his staff) and restricting access to documents and witnesses.
In more recent history, it’s the Democrat Party that pushed for the useless assault weapons ban and repeatedly tried to expand the useless assault weapons ban and to reinstate the useless assault weapons ban.
*Congressional Democrats, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, have reintroduced a bill that would ban assault weapons despite opposition in the Republican-led House and the reluctance of some Senate Democrats.
Feinstein wrote the original assault weapons ban, which became law in 1994 and expired in 2004. Democratic Reps. Carolyn McCarthy of New York and Ed Perlmutter of Colorado will lead the effort to push the bill through the House.*
The bill failed because the Democrat Party fails to understand that support for the 2nd crosses all of the usual lines of political and social opposition.
Again, you can’t just make things up.
Liberals have been asking conservatives that question for decades, but conservatives insist that it’s somehow vital for freedom.
So what you’re saying is, all Democrats hate guns, and so fail to realize that a lot of Democrats like guns?
This is what I’m talking about. I said it would only have an incremental effect and you ‘translated’ that to “no effect whatsoever” - you are not arguing in good faith and it’s tiresome.
Done here. Enjoy your recall elections and your revenge on those faithless Democrats.
I showed you the result. It had no effect (in fact, you can argue both gun crime and homicide increased as a result). Show me the “incremental effect”.
No, what’s been said is that despite the fact that some Democrats are pro-gun, the Democratic Party has maintained gun control in its party platform for decades, seemingly for purely ideological reasons related to the very form of society progressives want to [del]impose[/del] [del]install[/del] bring about.
Hahahaha. No, that’s not what I said.
I said that the Democrat Party fails to understand that support for the 2nd CROSSES ALL OF THE USUAL LINES OF POLITICAL and social opposition.
It’s the Democratic Party. Yes, a person who is a member is called a Democrat, but that’s not the name of the party.
I never understood why referring to the “Democrat party” is supposed to be insulting. (So I just chalk it up to willful ignorance.)
It’s like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Didn’t take as deliberately insulting, just annoying.
This is an oldie, Republicans have been using it as a childish “insulting” name for years. If I see it used, I assume that the user is either someone who gets all of his information from the Reich wing echo chamber or someone trying to be an asshole.
True, but I’ve never understood the rationale behind it as an insult.
I’d feel the same if instead of being a Democrat, I was a Republican and left-wing posters on the board started referring to “the Republic party.”
'Cause it ends in “-rat”, get it? It’s something to snicker over, nothing more. It isn’t ignorance as much as childishness.
See Democrat Party.