Benefit of the doubt?
I generally don’t consider acts of political theater threatening. That would be paranoid. There have been sincere attempts to ban some classes of guns and ammo, but that wasn’t one of them.
“Assault weapons” are guns, banning “assault weapons” is banning guns. I don’t think I’m misusing any terms to say that.
OK, your thoughts on my post number 25? I would think 40+ million extra guns in the face media bombardment going the other way would be hard to argue with.
Heroin gets used up. But once you have a gun, what difference does a second one make?
Yes, you are misusing terms. “Banning guns” implies a Japan-scale ban on all forms of them.
Like I said, I didn’t become a NRA member until 2012 so I only saw one of those covers. I was more motivated to buy extra guns, and become an NRA life member buy guys like Piers Morgan. Just saying.
Your guns will be very upset to hear you refer to them as “extra.” Each gun needs reassurance that it is special, necessary and loved.
Admittedly watching Piers Morgan makes me want to buy a gun too but my views on the man aside, the fact that you seem to prefer the arguments of delusional lunatic Alex Jones says quite a lot about you. Just saying.
No it doesn’t. To us freedom enthusiasts, banning guns implies banning any guns. Maybe you all just need to understand better how we look at it.
Except the assault weapon ban did no such thing, as I’m sure you and many in Congress already knew.
Worse, unless English isn’t your first language (I believe it is though, right?), it’s beyond a reasonable doubt that you know your phrasing was intended to mislead - to make the “ban” seem to cover more firearms than it actually does.
At the very least, it’s disingenuous even if it’s not technically incorrect. But engaging in that sort of pedantry is itself a sign of a weak argument.
Yeah, I get it. Any restriction (not even an outright ban) on any gun is a ban on guns. Too bad for you that in the real world, you can’t just redefine terms as you please and expect people to know what you are talking about.
Others have covered this better. You’re using background checks and other statistics in convoluted ways. “Lies, damned lies, and statistics” and all that.
Meh. I saw this during Clinton’s term and during Carter’s. Certainly, having a Democrat in the White House brings out more of the vocal crazies but, as the last few elections have shown, it’s a dangerous thing to listen to the most vocal extremists as a proxy for real data.
ETA: And Piers Morgan? He got virtually kicked out of the British media for a reason. He’s got near 0 credibility in a lot of books.
I don’t want to join in any debate, but I hope an objective Doper (is there such a thing? 
) will tell me whether or not Obama was ever unusually “anti-gun.”
The only non-conjecture in this excerpt is that he paid “Lip service to gun owners,” which is anti-gun only in a Black-Is-White, Ignorance-Is-Strength sense. My question is sincere; I don’t read much political news. Is Obama particularly a gun hater? Or is the main charge against him just Being President While Black?
I don’t know anything about Alex Jones, I just googled the question if Obama was the best gun salesman and that popped up. Seems is numbers held up though, or do you disagree?
Once you have a gun, what difference does a second one make?
No, sir, it’s you “freedom enthusiasts” :rolleyes: who need to understand better how everyone else looks at it.
Nope.
There’s a group of my friends - young-ish well-educated Texans in Dallas/Houston covering the political spectrum from fairly liberal to fairly conservative and all gun-owners - who are amused by the idea that Obama is particularly anti-gun or that he’s especially liberal.
None of us were worried about our guns, though we were annoyed that his election meant the more…intellectually deficient portions of the population took this as a sign to start stockpiling ammunition making it harder for the rest of us to get any.
It didn’t? They didn’t try to ban the sale of a subset of firearms?
Guns considered “assault weapons” are a lot of guns.
The argument is that a lot of guns have been sold while Obama has been in office. That’s undeniable isn’t it?
I restriction (like a waiting period) maybe isn’t a ban, but an assault weapon is a ban. Get it?
What do you think is the correlation between background checks and purchases? That’s an honest question.
I can only imagine that the difficulties associated with buying and using an artillery piece must seriously bug you.
It means the government has to keep coming back to confiscate them. If you make the jackboots have to come to your house 57 times, they might get tired of it.
When I was visiting my son in Kansas City this past summer, we were only able to buy two boxes of ammo for his new AR-15, so we got to shoot 20 rounds each. If we had planned ahead we could have ordered bigger quantities on line, but for spur of the moment range visits, they were rationed.
I get what you want to say, but you are (perhaps deliberately) using the language in a way that makes sense to you (and other like-minded people) but one that is not accepted English usage among the general population.
That’s either out of ignorance of accepted usage or in an attempt to sway opinions by presenting your case in a misleading fashion. As I said before, I tried to give some benefit of the doubt, but, as I’m not really that naive, that benefit is gone now.
Somewhere between -1 and 1 (though I’ll grant it’s greater than 0).
But one that is NOT fixed and has varied over the years as enforcement has improved.
Sure, I’ll buy they are correlated and maybe even highly correlated, but enforcement of checks, especially at gun shows (if the ones at the GRB convention center in Houston are any guide) are any kind of measuring stick, it’s a correlation that’s not only hard to measure but one that’s not comparable from year to year, especially over the last 10 years and one that’s constantly changing.