Well, lets not split hares…
About those “cosmetic features”. Howcum they keep making those “cosmetic features” so that the gun resembles something little Johnny Rambo wanted for Christmas? Got to be some form of marketing, yes? You often hear the sneer about “big, scary, black guns”, but, on the other hand, aren’t the manufacturers making them like that? To appeal to the gun buying public, one would assume. And assume reasonably.
Now, if the gun buying public is universally reasonable and unswayed by such juvenile and belligerent cosmetics, then why do they do it?
People buy fancy cars because they want to be seen as being rich. They buy the latest gadget because they want to be seen as being “with it”. But they don’t buy big, scary looking gun because they want to think of themselves as dangerous, to be feared?
Does that make sense to anybody?
So pass a law that all guns sold to the public must be bright pink.
What does it matter what a gun looks like? What does it matter why a manufacturer would make a gun to have a certain cosmetic appearance? What does it matter if a buyer of a gun prefers a certain appearance?
What makes any of this any business of government? Clearly, the “assault weapon” concept was not based even on any faint vestige of any legitimate public safety issues. It was all about trying to ban guns because they “look scary”. Aside from the clear Second- and Tenth-Amendment issues, if legislation is passed that targets a product based on its appearance, and based on whatever expression that appearance may convey, then this seems to possibly be skirting the edge of the First Amendment as well.
If there was a similar effort to outlaw certain automobiles, based on any criteria relating to a cosmetic appearance that someone thinks to associate with careless driving, the instigators of that effort would very rightfully be met with overwhelming scorn and mockery. There’s no way that such a policy would ever make it into law. There’s no reason why “assault weapon” bans ought to have ever been treated differently than such “assault automobile ban” proposals would be were anyone stupid enough to propose them
So make all guns bright pink. If a common argument is that women need them for self-protection against all those 250lb rapists, will they care? The color won’t affect their functionality, except to maybe make them a little harder to concealed-carry.
I was thinking of a “Hello, Kitty” theme, but your idea has some merit.
So, you’d prefer to answer a different question, and with a question? Can’t say as I blame you.
Didn’t say anything about changing the laws to forbid such cosmetic and, ah, “esthetic” touches that make the gun look more bad-ass and dangerous. Just wondering what you thought about why they do it. Or even if you have thought about it. Apparently not.
For me, the answer is pretty obvious, they do it to sell more guns.
The Army didn’t issue me a hunting rifle, it issued me an assault rifle.
I just wonder when they’re fantasizing about their favorite collapse of government and Mad Max post apocalypse scenario (and they all have them) if they ever stop to consider the women & family? Excuse me, their women? Or is it all shooting everyone and hoarding stuff and more shooting everyone.
You better get out there and learn to weave me some new shootin’ clothes, or you are gonna start lookin’ expendable, bitch. I can get me a fresh 12-year-old on the market you know. They’re giving 'em away these days.
“You should never argue with a crazy man”, sang Billy Joel.
Then surely, you know the difference between the genuine assault rifle that you were issued in the Army, and the “assault weapons” that so many wish to ban or severely restrict.
Not really. Is one designed for squirrel hunting?
Gun bunnies brag about how they are the same, and therefore gun grabbers r dum.
You know what though? Have your guns. I don’t care. Don’t quibble over semantics. You have an assault murder weapon and you want us to think it’s for deer. It isn’t. It just isn’t.
Register it. Don’t sell it to the deranged weirdo down the street.
If this ignoring shit persists, you all will force me to go and hide in Anne Archer’s shower.
They’re not crazy, just racist. They have teh same attitude towards minorities that some people have towards guns. Irrational fear and hatred.
Who said that gun owners aren’t swayed by aesthetics. You ever hear of gun porn? The point is that there is nothing about these banned features that make them more dangerous, its just makes the hoplophobes shit small cows.
Yes its the same reason theyb used to put fishtails on cars, to sell more cars.
If people wanted guns that looked like star trek phasers (the ones that had grips, not the ones that you held like a remote control), they would sell them.
It is increasingly used for hunting.
Better yet, don’t sell your guns:D
Let’s go all libertarian, free market, second amendment on their asses.
If you own a gun, you are responsible for registering and securing it. I don’t give a fuck how you secure it. However, if that piece ends up with a deranged weirdo, you’re on the hook for a felony and civil lawsuits. A child comes over to your house and a terrible accident happens, you’re on the hook for a felony and civil lawsuits.
None of this “it was an accident” or “I sold it to my cousin” bullshit. Like any responsible gun owner, which all second amenders are, you’re responsible for your piece or you pay the consequences.
First of all “all libertarian, free market” etc. is counter to “registering it”. Second - would you have to register everything you own? If someone steals your knife and kills someone with it, are you “on the hook for a felony and civil lawsuits”? Hell, let’s go with already registered things - if someone steals your car and kills someone with it, do you advocate that you be “on the hook for a felony and civil lawsuit”? And if not, why not?
I say, our society can afford to tolerate Gun Grabbers, but we can’t let them marry each other! :mad:
We register automobiles, but there remains a free market in them.
But not a libertarian one.