True, but they certainly were involved in a very public attack, and, frankly, I see zero use for them except for someone who is trying to skirt the spirit of the automatic weapons restrictions. I’ve seen videos of them being fired, and they have no utility except being able to spray out a bunch of bullets. In addition, I think it’s a good faith gesture to allow them to be banned at this time and in light of their use in Vegas. Do I think this will do anything wrt gun violence? Nope, not even a little bit. But sometimes you have to do things just to show good faith and I think this is one of those times.
Well, here is the thing. I don’t believe any attempt to ban semi-automatic rifles will be possible. I also don’t think banning handguns, or even semi-automatic handguns are possible. It’s too broad and will be met with too much resistance. I also think it goes against the spirit of the 2nd to ban such a broad category. Until and unless the 2nd is set aside or vacated I don’t think it’s going to happen.
If it WERE possible, I’d say a handgun ban would be the way to go if you have to do an either or. This is all supposed to be about body count, after all, and trying to save lives. While something like Vegas is spectacular and horrifying, the real body count from gun violence in the US is handguns. They are involved in a very large percentage of gun violence, crime as well as suicide. They would be the logical choice, IMHO. Even a semi-automatic handgun ban would (in theory, if we ignore reality for a bit) save the most lives. You don’t ban things or create legislature to do so, IMHO, because of potential, you do it based on the hard numbers of what is actually causing a lot of deaths. Probability and all that. A meteor COULD hit the earth and kill us all…but something tangible that is actually killing people right now is more a threat that needs to be dealt with now.
I know you don’t agree, and I respect that. I just don’t agree with you on this.
That’s fair. I respect what you’ve said as well.
Thanks. 
I can’t imagine why anyone who actually owns a firearm would admit to a pollster, or to a government census-taker, that they have guns in their home. It’s a lack of trust issue.
I don’t think this is right. A rifle has quite a bit of defense utility. A SBR even more so. The longer barrel of a rifle makes aiming easier, as well as the shoulder firing position. For a smaller person, a lightweight rifle has quite a bit of utility. There is a reason police have rifles and it’s not to commit mass murder.
In addition, in terms of suppressing riots or other temporary civil unrest rifles are going to outperform handguns. The main reason my main house gun isnt a rifle is that its harder to secure with kids in the house. The purpose of the pistol is to get you to your rifles.
None of that is a constitutional argument either but there are those that are just as strong.
Are we playing “Deliverance”?
Is Jeff Foxworthy around?
You might be a redneck if:
you worry about admitting to a pollster that you own a gun.
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. It’s kind of the way words work.
You say this wouldn’t happen, but it already has. Did you know that? CA sought registration of the SKS rifle and afterwards banned their possession, effectively confiscating them.
As for banning bump stocks - I think it’s silly to ban bump stocks when actual machine guns are legal. That makes zero sense. The current bills in Congress are terrible in that they are so broad as to be able to be interpreted to ban anything. Not surprising coming from Feinstein. ATF should simply reinterpret them to be machine guns.
That would require some really screwy interpretation and ignore the plain language of the law. From the ATF:
I’m sure Bone already knows this, but for those that don’t: a SlideFire-equipped semi-auto functions by shooting just a single bullet for each function of the trigger. If the ATF does try to interpret the SlideFire into machine-gun-hood, it’ll be challenged in court, and ought to be slapped down by any honest judge.
As I’ve said, I just want the issue to go away. So many MANY Americans base their votes on this one stupid issue. (D) would have easily one the White House, I think, if it weren’t for gun-obsessed voters.
Trump’s Presidency is likely to cost far more lives than guns kill in a decade.
On the other hand, although I’m neutral on the issue, reading the “arguments” of gun lovers is comedy gold. For example:
Let’s see if I got this straight. The main reason gun nuts say they need guns is to protect themselves (law-abiding, every one) from criminals. The reason they oppose gun registration is that it will make it easier for police to catch them if their gun collection becomes criminal. Right?
Or is the God-Given Second Commandment so dear to Jehovah’s heart that all gun possession would still be Holy even were mortals to declare it criminal?
Of course this all assumes that “at least some on the anti-gun side” refers to a democratically-elected government. Can you clarify this for us, XT?
Society has done what now? AFAICT society seems to be protecting my rights and laughing at your sides feeble attempts at infringing my rights. I have seen house and Senate seats flip because gun rights were being threatened. I don’t recall song a house or senate seat flip because someone didn’t infringe enough. The whole world may age with you in your mind but when you lose election after election on the gun issue, you’ve got to ask your self whether you ate out of touch or the rest of the world’s is.
Well shit if we’re going to start restricting rights without any data, I’ll go let the pro-life people know.
I was pointing out your hypocrisy. You are no better than the vaginal ultrasound folks. You seem to think that as long as you can come up with some half assed theory that some shitty proposal might yield results that you like, then it doesn’t really matter if that infringement on others rights will actually yield beneficial results or not.
OK, I checked, its not there. Noone said that single shot weapons can be fired repeatedly in a great hurry. I think you might have gotten confused when we tried to explain the difference between automatic and semi-automatic.
I’m not trying to discredit you with your ignorance, you’re doing a fine job of that all on your own. A little less certainty on your part would probably make you more credible but like I said, there is no one as certain of things as the ignorant.
What prior mistake am I constantly harping on? Every time I point out your ignorance its to a new fucking instance of ignorance almost every post you make has faulty assumptions based on ignorance.
And if you are going to start proposing rules about restricting guns base on their “mechanics” then don’t you think you ought to know a thing or two about those “mechanics”?
You think you’re knowledgeable now? A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
AFAICT you are ignorant about guns, they don’t really interest you enough for you to get to know a lot about them. Fair enough.
You have developed some opinions about gun violence and a lot of frustration over our inability to curb gun violence so you think the answer is to curb guns but don’t really understand the link between guns and gun violence but you think that if you can limit guns in any way shape or form, it will correspondingly limit gun violence. This is not an unreasonable place to be considering the information you have at hand. especially considering the fact that other people who trust in the media seem to hold this same view.
But I’m telling you that most of the anti-gun folks you see on TV know little to nothing about guns or what makes good gun policy. And much of that ignorance is deliberate. They don’t want to know about guns. So you would probably do yourself a favor if you assumed that everything they ever told you about guns was pulled directly out of their ass. Some of it might be correct but not consistently enough for you to rely on anything they say. They’re not lying, they just reach a bunch of conclusions based on a bunch of faulty assumption and incomplete information.
No, he is saying that irrational fear of muslims is like irrational fear of guns.
No, someone (maybe you) said that Trump owed money to some Russians and that was significant because that means Trump would do what the Russians want because the Russian Mafia would threaten to kill his family if he didn’t listen to them. I said that was retarded because you can’t really coerce the POTUS by making threats against his family. Also why would the Russian mafia need Trump to owe some Russians money to try and get him to do what they want?
At some point I also said that there is no embarrassing thing that you can hold over his head because he wouldn’t give a shit. You can try to float the story that Trump peed on prostitutes in Russia and he wouldn’t blink an eye. He’s got no shame about these things. Come on now.
Well, the example that keeps coming up in that context is California’s confiscation of SKS rifles. All you need is an administration that is not particularly concerned about the constitution and almost anything can happen. Right now Trump has a list of every DACA applicant. He will know exactly where they are when DACA runs out. Do you think they wish that Trump didn’t have that information?
Ignorance doesn’t have to be a permanent condition, in fact it usually isn’t. Arrogance on the other hand…
-
Or when a comparable minority of US citizens insisted it was a basic right to abort fetuses, perhaps?
Performance art type ridiculous analogies can be used on either side. -
I’d say you mainly prove my point, with a particularly cheesy performance at that.
‘It will require a civil war’. I agree, but it’s worth fighting a literal civil war over banning guns? It’s hard to believe you really think that, though giving you benefit of doubt you might not deserve. And ‘when the hammer falls’. Again what dull inkling of a political consensus to ban guns in the US is there? None whatsoever.
The strongly pro-gun side (of which I’m not particularly a member personally) has it’s own over dramatic rhetoric, but your’s is really very typical of exactly what I was talking about, pretty much completely unmoored from political reality. Performance art, the idea that a ridiculously overwrought kind of argument, actually not in any way intended to convince anyone of anything, is justified by ‘how you feel’. The more ridiculous, the more it signals your virtue in holding the ‘righteous’ position.
Hillary had to get to the left of Bernie on some issue… any issue so she ran to his left on guns and she lost Pennsylvania, Wisconisn, and Michigan. Sure there were other factors but you certainly lose votes in those states with a gun control platform.
If you want the issue to go away, then just drop it. Encourage all your friends to drop it. Tell everyone you know that guns are just not worth losing elections over. See what sort of reception you get.
A previous poster said that he wanted the government could keep an eye on anyone that had 20 guns, or something like that. Registration provides an avenue for the government to profile people based on how many guns they own when there is no evidence that having a shit ton of guns makes you more likely to commit crimes.
For home defense, I anticipate shooting indoors at close range with the possibility of friendly targets that I don’t want to hit. I am not anticipating a siege, and I would hate to put too many holes in the wall.
My setup is that my bolt action and semi-autonrifles are well locked up. I have my Walther P22 through which I have fired 1000s and 1000s of rounds and which is like an extension of my hand at easy access. In a hidden spot I have a shotgun loaded with a “gamblers choice” of heavy birdshot, slug, and 3 rounds of buckshot.
For any situation where that is inadequate amount of firepower my plan is to run away, surrender, or die.