Whew! Glad you brought that to the boards attention. I guess we are through with all those nasty gun threads now. Thanks!
By the way I call bullshit on your reason for putting this in the pit.
SenorBeef, what kind of changes to the law would you propose? I agree, the AWB was a poorly-written law that didn’t have much of an effect other than to push up the prices of pre-ban hardware and piss a lot of people off. I went to close to 20 gun shows while the AWB was in effect and part of what I remember was a lot of trying to bypass the law, a lot of anti-Clinton merchandise (and related mid-90s right-wing craziness), and there was always someone selling some sort of trigger modification for semi-autos. Not being a gun owner (nothing against them, I just don’t have any reason to have one right now) and not knowing all the technical details, I’m still against trying to re-pass the AWB as it was written. I’d rather see better mental health care in this country, as well as perhaps more licensing and registration, perhaps a more extensive background check, but I’m not sure what would be reasonable when it comes to the actual hardware.
I have to admit that I have noticed a bit of ignorance on the part of pro-control posters here. Hey, gun laws are complicated and if you aren’t interested in guns, you won’t know a lot about them. But for a guy who claims to be able to be unconcerned about the likelihood of major gun legislation, you sure come off like a frightened gun nut, Senor.
Don’t let your complete lack of knowledge in the subject keep you from advocating
How do I sound frightened? No matter what I say, this plays into your “all gun owners are extremely frigthened with small penises” bullshit charicature. How is what I said actually fearful of anything? I’m just saying that you smarmy assholes all pat each other on the back on how enlightened and clever you are, calling all who oppose you brutish idiots, WHEN YOU ARE PROPOSING FUCKING STUPID THINGS.
There isn’t going to be any new major gun law passed anytime soon. You can’t get the republicans to agree to country-saving laws that have no downside, you think you’re going to pass something as contentious as major gun control legislaton?
But what you’re doing is firing up their base, and alienating people like me, who’s actually quite anti-republican and voted for obama twice, so good job on that. Convince yourself that all gun rights advocates are tiny penised, scared men who always vote republican, meanwhile you throw a fucking lifeline to the republican party by taking up the gun control banner. Morons.
Cool your jets, there. I know a person who can sew clothing. But she doesn’t create clothes at industrial speeds. If we banned the manufacture of blue jeans, it would still lower access. This is so obvious that one wonders if you’re arguing this honestly.
Guys who reload aren’t going to create a huge supply of black market bullets. Unless they run secret factories with staff and distribution.
I’m not the one who made a bogus claim (in another thread) and then handwaved it when it turned out my memory was faulty, Senor. You might try reading more and turning down the volume. Then you wouldn’t sound like a frightened gun nut.
I don’t recall making any proposals. I don’t see you making any, either, although you just got asked for some. Nor have I made any of the slurs on gun owners that you’re talking about. If my memory is faulty, please provide a link and I’ll apologize. I don’t expect the same courtesy from you when you can’t.
I’m not so sure. The Democrats are talking up bringing back the assault weapon ban. I guess it could happen. In any event, I’m not the one passing it. I’m not even a Democrat. I’ve learned that my ability to make political predictions isn’t very good, anyway. All I’m saying is for a guy who says he’s not worried, you sound worried. Is that better? I didn’t say frightened this time.
The stats I’ve seen show that significant numbers of Americans support commonsense laws like registration requirements and bans on extended clips and semi-automatic rifles. I don’t have a problem with any of those. I don’t see why anybody would, really, unless they manufacture the items in question and think sales will be hurt. Hobbyists, maybe. I know if my hobby was linked, even only in the public mind, with massacres, I’d welcome legislation that addressed those fears, so long as I could continue to enjoy it.
I’d say that you’re doing more harm to your side by demonizing and alienating people of potential goodwill than I ever could. Try a little rational discussion. You’ll sound less worried that way.
Why would a ban on semi-automatic rifles be a “commonsense” law? Because I
it sounds to me like a law that would be proposed by someone who doesn’t know dick about rifles.
Another issue with reloading is that the cartridges do wear out and eventually cannot be reloaded. Also, if ammunition is restricted, it seems reasonable the powder and primers would be equally hard to acquire.
Semi-automatic rifles don’t serve enough practical purposes to make up for their efficiency in killing people. They’re overkill for hunting-- the rule of thumb I always heard was if you hear more than one shot, whoever is shooting missed. And, if you accept that self-defense is a legitimate use for guns, they’re overkill for that, too. What they’re good for is recreational shooting-- well, that’s the legitimate use that comes to mind.
Possibly. What’s the difference? Would you feel better if whoever proposed such a change in the law worked in law enforcement? I don’t think it would be hard to find a cop who would agree with it.
What makes you think cops know dick about rifles? Or about guns in general beyond a passing familiarity with their service pistol?
Because someone does?
I regularly see comments in these threads proposing banning handguns. I own handguns (three of the - and they’re all eevil semiautomatic pistols, too). When I hear people proposing handgun bans, it is quite reasonable for me to conclude they do in fact want to take my guns away.
No, we believe in fighting idiotic gun control measures which don’t actually accomplish anything other than harassing law abiding gun owners. Unfortunately, that turns out to be most of the gun control measures proposed (largely because the people proposing them know little about the subject they’re trying to regulate).
Fucking brilliant. 10,000+ gun related deaths in this country, and you think its common sense to ban the ones that are responsible for a small handful of them per year.
Here is some information from a law enforcement officer about “assault weapons”
From this page
All I said was that there is public support for such a ban. I agree that they kill relatively few people-- guns kill relatively few people, even in the US. I notice that you didn’t quibble with my assertion that semi-automatic rifles serve no legitimate purpose that outweighs their capacity for slaughtering humans-- that’s the commonsense part.
Knew the distinction between assault rifles and semi-automatics already, thanks anyway. I’m not sure that people unaware of the difference need to know, because fully automatic weapons are already banned.
Sure would be nice to have those people in Connecticut back. Maybe they’re just a handful, but I wish they were still alive.
To say they serve no legitimate purpose exposes your total ignorance of the subject. It isn’t worth arguing over, especially since hunting rifles are basically never used as efficient human-killing machines. Nothing about any of that is common sense.
That’s a ridiculous appeal to emotion that could be used to justify literally any regulation of any kind. Not just gun control.
On top of that, a ban on hunting rifles wouldn’t have saved any of those children’s lives.
Again, not what I said. I said that they’re good for sport shooting, which is, of course, a legitimate use. Personally, if I was in any position to make rules, I’d say that people could own or rent semi automatics for sport shooting so long as they were kept in secured, licensed sporting clubs. I’m not. They might get banned altogether. If it was my hobby, I guess I might be a little bummed.
I guess I should make clear that I mean target shooting, not hunting, because you seem determined to put words in my mouth. Nobody needs a semi automatic for hunting. Strikes me as lazy, really.
This whole line y’all are taking that only the ignorant support gun control is amusing, seeing how a recent survey shows most gun owners are in favor of some additional restrictions.
You’re the one putting words in my mouth if you think I’m opposed to any additional restrictions. You’re also wrong about semi-automatics serving no legitimate hunting use. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about if you think using one for hunting is lazy.