So then guns don’t kill people, people do?
So if I understand you correctly, you are asserting that the physical location of a person somehow affects the validity of their argument?
No, you don’t understand. I never made reference to Feinstein’s physical location when she gave her interview somehow providing validity to her argument. The point made was that the interview was on 60 minutes, a fairy reputable news show that has been aired for around 44 years. Ibn Warraq felt since the video clip was hosted on Alex Jones’ truther site, that I fell in line with Alex Jones’ tinfoil hat beliefs.
Ibn was mistaken.
No. He’s saying that based on Feinstein and Cuomo’s comments it is fair to say ‘they’re coming for our guns.’ It isn’t, and they aren’t.
Yeah, that’s it… :rolleyes:
Of course my problem is that I take people at their word. My bad.
Did I misunderstand what you were saying?
Considering what tinfoil was asking had nothing to do with your comment I’d say so.
Yes, but I thought tinfoil hat misunderstood what you posted.
He did, and it appears you took the occasion to take a shot at my opinion.
I took at shot at the tenuous justification of the language you’re using, yes. But I think I was right about tinfoil hat’s misunderstanding: he thought you were talking about physical proximity rather than what “our” firearms are.
Yeah, he thought I was talking about location. I made no such argument with you or Ibn in past posts.
He made no mention of “our” firearms. That was all you. I answered him/her and you felt that you needed to come in and be a helper.
Well if a gun blows up and kills a guy, I could say that the gun killed the guy. Can’t you sue gun manufacturers for THAT?
But to be fair, guns are a tool that make killing a lot easier and more likely. Just look at suicide success rates between guns and any things like slitting your wrists or taking sleeping pills.
Guns may not kill people but they are lethal, if they weren’t they wouldn’t be much use.
They may not be able to, but it is clear that they would if they had the power to do so.
Kinda like, if I were king of the world, I would do x. I’m not, ain’t gonna happen in my lifetime, but I can dream for x.
The vocal firearm enthusiasts seem to paint with a broad brush that any restriction from what we have now is a gun grabber. I’d say the majority of the time this would be the wrong logical leap. At least, it would be in my case. YMMV
But they’re not able and they know it. So saying “they are coming” is absurd. Somehow saying “they would take our guns if they could, but they know they can’t and aren’t even trying!” doesn’t have the same zing. And the comments I’ve seen from Cuomo don’t even justify that statement.
Because clearly, Cuomo doesn’t have the ability to pass draconian gun control measures, minus the whole confiscation bit that he threatened, in just a few days.
How is that supposed to prove your point? Cuomo never “threatened” to confiscate a gun - he said it was an option - and the bill that was passed didn’t include any confiscation measures. That would indicate that even if he wanted to do it (and he never said he did), he doesn’t have the power. New York’s gun control laws were already very strict, so I’m not sure this can be called draconian.
Registering rifles, limiting magazines to 7 rounds, no exemptions for even the police on the first passed bill? Nah, not draconian at all.
Seeing as you live in NY, how many "assault weapons"do you own that were affected by this legislation?
Compare to what the laws were before.
How many “assault weapons” do you own that are affected by this?