What difference does it make?
Rifles are now registered, magazine size has been limited to 7 which effectively outlaws all magazines currently in use for rifles and pistols, background checks for ammo purchases, and my favorite:
So much for that whole doctor/patient confidentiality bit.
Because the biggest disconnect between you and I is that (just spit balling here, since you wont answer…) you don’t own the property that they are causally discussing confiscating. As such, you don’t give a shit. So we see things a bit differently.
What we’re having is a disagreement over how something should be regulated, not a disconnect based on ownership of property.
And my theory is that if you owned said property, you’d have a different opinion.
So your theory is that every single gun owner agrees with you about everything?
Nope, I’m just looking at you.
OK. So it makes no difference.
What makes no difference? Whether every other gun owner in the universe agrees with me or not? Nope. I couldn’t care less.
My personal gun ownership. You’re unable to say why it matters to this discussion (because it doesn’t). The issue is what you and I think is a reasonable regulation, not my concern about anybody’s property.
I asked if you owned the guns affected. I theorized that you would have a different opinion regarding what is reasonable if you owned those guns. It’s got nothing to do with anyone else.
I think the biggest handicap on the gun control side of the debate is that they sound the way Republicans sound on almost every other issue. I.e., they are ignorant of the facts but have deeply rooted beliefs that make them want to do things like ban assault weapons because their ignorance make them afraid of things they are unfamiliar with. Its kind of like some conservatives with black people. A lack of exposure leaves them with nothing to go on but what they see on TV and the movies. If you had a gun it would indicate some minimal level of familiarity with guns.
I’m not saying that all gun control advocates are ignorant but too many of their supporters are. How many people on THIS board had an AHA moment when someone explained that semi-automatic didn’t mean machine gun?
And I ask again: what difference does it make? I haven’t even proposed any specific regulations and I’ve acknowledged in other threads that I leave that to people with superior expertise. There’s no rule that you need to have firsthand familiarity with Medicare, the military, drug policy, or anything else to have an opinion on how society should handle those, so I’m not interested in playing this game. My contribution to this thread has been to point out that Cuomo and Feinstein’s statements - Cuomo’s in particular - are being portrayed in a way that is totally inaccurate. The words aren’t being represented fairly and their context is being ignored entirely to justify a hardline criticism of gun control. I’ve also said in the past that I don’t want regulation just to eliminate guns; I want something that makes sense and that reduces gun violence. I don’t accept that that’s a radical position that requires a great deal of credentialing.
I’m not saying you can’t have a valid opinion without being familiar with guns. You can certainly believe that there is a problem with gun violence in this country without having ever fired a gun. I’m just saying that your perspective is incomplete because you MIGHT have an irrational fear of guns that has been pounded into you by the media.
A fear of guns is a very rational reaction for people without guns. It upsets the balance of control in any situation. No encouragement from the media is needed.
Legalize drugs? Mandatory birth control for those on welfare?
Perhaps you could argue for or against the positions I take rather than speculating about fears I might have.
I support drug legalization. I don’t support eugenics. I also support staying on topic. 
You asked for ideas that would work, so it’s not really changing the subject. I think a lot of gun violence has to do with drug prohibition and poverty. Seems we agree on one out of two. I don’t think birth control for those on welfare is eugenics, or at least not eugenics in a bad way. I just don’t think you should have kids if you can’t afford to support them. I’m not talking about sterilization at all, just birth control, which is temporary for the time period that you want the welfare.
And when we have a fully armed criminal population that no law is going to reverse in the near term. Why would you want to outlaw the opportunity to level the playing field?
I’m OK with both (with the caveat that everyone gets to have one (MAYBE two) child no matter how poor they are and then they can come in and get their birth control injections as a condition of further welfare payments). I don’t even know if this would be entirely objectionable to poor women who have to pay for birth control but I don’t feel uncomfortable making welfare payments conditioned on contraception. Christie Todd Whitman suggested this once and got creamed for it so it will never happen but its not eugenics, its enforcing responsible procreation.
OK. It it is CLEAR AS DAY that Feinstein and Cuomo WOULD take the guns if they COULD and you’re saying that people are being silly to be concerned about “gungrabbing” because they can’t actually accomplish that right now. If these were fringe House Democrats saying this stupid shit it would be one thing but its governors and senators. We have the POTUS saying he wants to institute and ineffective ban on assault weapons.
Just because we are paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get us.
I already dealt with this. Caps lock doesn’t change it.