After reading this thread, I was finally inspired to stop saying I am going to join the NRA, and actually join. Maybe the influx of new members over these weeks will somehow help block the passage of whatever pointless gun bans they try to pass.
And this is from someone who overall likes Obama.
We’ll see what the end result will be but I don’t think that the proposals will just be lip service. Thats just a guess of course. I also don’t think it will be ultimately successful at removing large numbers of guns. But many in the government will push for it.
I hope you’re right. But I doubt it.
I disagree. I think most gun owners recognize that outright confiscation of every gun isn’t likely. But the gradual chipping away of rights is what they fear. First ban assault weapons. Then ban semi-autos. Then ban handguns.
That’s fine, as far as opinions go. But OMHO banning assault weapons is a clear attack on the second amendment.
Here’s my thought process on that:
The second amendment protects the right of individuals to own guns.
A ban on assault weapons is banning types of guns based entirely on cosmetic features.
Allowing this constitutionally means that any type of gun could be banned, since banning ones with bayonet rails or pistol grips makes so little sense that any reason could be introduced to justify further bans.
If congress passed a law banning certain types of speech based entirely on cosmetic, meaningless criteria wouldn’t that be an attack on the first amendment?
Of course the NRA spends more money – the NRA has more members. And the NRA enjoys more popular support for its position, which translates into more contributed dollars.
Well, “he’s going to take .001% of the guns out there” would be more accurate, then. But that doesn’t have the same zing to it, does it? And I’m not buying the slippery slope argument. Don’t we already have a ruling on the banning of hand guns?
I’m not sure they are most accurately described as entirely “cosmetic” features.
Except the NRA, for some reason, doesn’t publish its finances, making it impossible to tell how much of its financing comes from popular support and how much comes from Smith, Wesson, et al.
AFAIK, the assault weapons ban didn’t result in one single weapon being “taken away” from one single person. It banned the manufacture of certain types of weapons with certain types of features. People who owned them, kept them.
If you have information contrary to this, I’d like to know.
Another question I have is, since the old assault weapons ban was so cosmetic and essentially meaningless, in large part because gun makers could make small cosmetic changes and go on making pretty much the same weapons – why is it so fuckin’ scary?
Disagreeing with you = / = disloyalty to the Constitution.
Because when the Democrats say it, that is code for “We want to do something ineffective but onerous out of spite towards all the evil gun owners who didn’t vote for me anyway.”
:smack: Excellent point, and I can’t believe I missed that.
So, does anyone think that Biden’s proposed solutions will contain any language that will make even one gun owner surrender his weapon to the government (assuming that weapon wasn’t illegal, prior)?
This is true. But it’s semantics. People’s rights to buy them were “taken away”.
Who said it was “so fuckin’ scary”? Mostly the complaints from the gun rights people I know was that it was stupid. Also, it was ineffective. It also sends a dangerous precedent that the overall right can be taken away since you can argue that a ban on all of them could follow a ban on just ones that look a certain way.
The same argument applies to private ownership of large caliber weapons, chain guns, howitzers, and so on.
Bwahahaha.
There is someone buying into fear-based propaganda. However, I think you are mighty confused as to who is doing the buying.
Slee
–SNIP–
" Sticks and Stones can break my Bones
But words can never harm me".
Sound familiar? It’s deeply chilling that the “right” to blow a 7 year old’s face off with an automatic weapon is now equated with speaking out without fear.
If you think that’s over the top unreal made up hyperbole, well… try telling that to the parents in Newton who are being told there isn’t enough left of their child’s face and skull to work with to permit an open casket.
You’ve proved every single point in my O.P.
Thanks.:dubious:
Yes, exactly. I find it very ironic that the anti-gun people so freely accuse gun owners of being needlessly fearful and insecure, when it’s the anti-gun people who are running around like chickens with their head cut off about an event that has almost zero chance of ever happening to them.
No. It doesn’t because there is a difference between a chain gun or howitzer and a firearm. It’s not just cosmetic.
What’s a “large caliber weapon”? Are you talking about a Marlin .444 or a mortar?
Just don’t accuse him of being anti-gun.
What are you talking about? Is English not your native language? I have no idea what you are trying to convey here.
You didn’t make any points in your OP.
Almost zero chance? Gee.
Tell that to the person who
Went to a movie.
Got some gas at the station.
Walked down the street.
Went to a store.
Made a bank deposit.
Sat in their bedroom.
Walked down the sidewalk.
Went to a sporting event.
Was sitting in their car.
And so on and so on and so on. Really? You hide behind the paper thin excuse of " Oh please- there’s almost a zero chance of you being killed with a gun. The numbers are terrific !! Only 10,000 + Americans killed with guns every year. Hell, there’s millions of us. Hardly a drop of blood in the bucket." ?
Nice !
Oh, boo hoo. People’s right’s to buy a semi-automatic rifles with a bayonet attachment AND a collapsing stock were taken away. With the assault weapons ban they had to choose between the bayonet attachment OR the collapsing stock on the same gun. They could still buy one rifle with one and another rifle with the other.
And the difference between having your gun taken from you and NOT having your gun taken from you is “semantic”? Right.