So there is no compromise from your side. So it always comes down to your side wanting to make this a technical discussion where you can consult your library of gun encyclopedias and your lifetime collection of gun magazines and quote specs and other “facts” designed to dull the opposition into silence.
Eventually, this crap will continue to the point where the vast majority of people can no longer stomach the weekly slaughter on the news and they will decide that enough is enough. And then you will scream and cry and wail and beg for compromise. But it will not be offered and it will be too late.
In the meantime, enjoy your pin-ups of the latest products from the merchants of death and caress them lovingly in the darkness of your homes. Count your days.
That’d be more convincing if your side hadn’t been losing in both the political and legal arenas for decades. The Clinton Administration was the final flowering. If we won’t compromise, it’s because you made it clear to us that each new piece of legislation was just “a good first step.” Your side’s often egregious ignorance about the very objects you wish to regulate/ban also makes it difficult to reach any compromise.
So tell me this then… there are lots of folks like myself who do not own guns but have grown to accept that the Constitution says otherwise. I accept that people can have a gun for protection or a rifle for hunting and that sort of thing. I further acknowledge that if the government ever attempted to take in all the guns that there would be a violent insurrection like we have not seen since the Civil War. I get all that.
But why doesn’t your side get that lots of us just think that military style assault weapons and the cop killer type gun used in Ft. Hood are simply way over the line and are not necessary?
Yeah… I know what you fear … today its A, and next year its B, and before you know it you have been taught to read and write all the letters. Screw that slippery slope. Just tell me about A today.
Why do you get to tell me what I need?
Why does anybody need a car that can go faster than the legal speed limit?
Why does anybody need more than one car?
Why does anybody need alcohol?
Why does anybody need tobacco?
Why does anybody need anything beyond basic food, clothing, and shelter and who put you in charge?
Why does anybody need access to bio-chemical weapons?
Why does anybody need access to anti-aircraft missiles?
Why does anybody need access to plutonium?
Why does anybody need access to child pornography?
Why does anybody need access to imported plants with citrus canker?
Why does anybody need access to leaded gas?
Why does anybody need access to unsafe cribs?
Is there a demand for any of those things, DanBlather?
Is there a Constitutionally guaranteed right to any of those things?
You’re side has tried all manner of bullshitty and questionably legal ways to accomplish your ends. Primarily what you accomplished was to galvanize gun owners and create the militant 2A lobby that exists today. That must really chap your ass.
Your side knows what they have to do. You have to change the Constitution itself. There are procedures in place for you to do just that. All you need is the will and enough support from the people of this country. If you can’t muster those things, then I guess you’ll just have to content yourself with impotently whining on the Internet.
As for me, it’s a nice day here. I believe I may pack up an AR-15 (“assault weapon”), an AK (“assault weapon”), my PSL (“sniper weapon”), and a high-capacity handgun or two (“assault pistols”) and enjoy a little range time.
I guess the real question is; do you understand, at all, what you’re trying to ban? These guns are not functionally different than the ones don’t mind not banning. The only difference is cosmetic.
It’s like banning Porche body styles, but allowing for people (or even off-the-line) VW Bugs with 9-11 turbo engines in them.
Your “needs” - if indeed that is what they truly are and not merely irrational manifestations of social pathologies or mental illness - are trivial and inconsequential compared to the needs of society. And it is the rest of society which will determine that for you.
Todderbob - sorry, but I will not be sucked into selecting from your favorite pin-ups of Miss November, Miss December and Miss April.
I don’t own any of those guns, nor I don’t intend to (edit:and for clarity, I don’t have a picture of a gun anywhere in my home). And I don’t appreciate the fact that you’ve resulted to childishness and immaturity when I’ve done nothing of the sort – in this thread or any other.
Of course not. What you do intend to do, and what you are attempting to do is to make this about technical specifications of weaponry at which you will kick my ass because you are into this particular slice of life and I am not. That is your particular game because it works for you and makes you sound smart and the other side sound dumb.
Why do you and others keep pretending that its all or nothing? Lots of regular folks do not mind gun ownership and may even be in favor it it but are deadset against anything more than the “normal” kind of pistol or rifle.
Yeah, I know and don’t bother with “what is normal” cause you know damn well what I mean.
What I’m telling you is that the ‘abnormal’ stuff (military style assault weapons – Selective Fire weapons) have been heavily regulated (and registered) since the 1930s and banned since 1986 (with the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protections Act).
What I’m talking about is familiarizing yourself with the topic, before you suggest trying to ban anything. Whether firearm, vehicle or anything else.
If what you say is true, then how did this murderer in Texas walk into a gun shop and buy something that should have been banned long ago according to you?
What he used was what you refer to as a ‘normal gun.’
There was nothing special about the firearm used, the fact that it was labled the “cop killer” pistol is something that the media has done.
The FN-5.7 has less ballistic power than than a 10mm pistol, or a 9mm +P.
The military version of the ammunition is specifically designed to penetrate body armor, but it’s not available to the general public. If he got that ammunition, he got it through the military.
I mean, you may feel free to explain why Anchorage’s rape rate is so high despite your claim that carrying guns makes crime go down for the home audience, and I may even read it. But as for discussing the matter with you, forget it. If you’re going to use personal impressions of fuzzy memories of places you went a couple of times when you were a kid as references for crime statistics, there’s no point.
Sorry Todderbob - I disagree totally. That is precisely the type of weapon that revolts many Americans and spurs on talk of banning weapons.
Like I said before, you want to have a pistol or rifle or shotgun for protection or hunting - fine with me. Forget the rest of this stuff as it goes way beyond protection or hunting or any other civilized usage in our society.
Why don’t you tell me this? What would somebody need a pistol like that for as opposed to something like the old Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry cannon or the type of pistol issued to most police officers on the street for daily usage? I would be greatly interested in knowing the answer to that.
The idea that
*** someone can think of it
*** technology can construct it
*** arms merchants can sell it
so thus its legit, is not acceptable to me and I would suspect lots of other Americans.
If you don’t want to be informed of facts in crafting your wet-dream utopian gun control laws, then tough shit. Guns are here to stay.
And so are we.
Fine. Draft an amendment to the Constitution. Get your signatures, your votes, whatever. That’s the honest way to go about it.
But oh! Wait! It’ll never fly! Even dyed-in-the-wool gun haters like the Clintons, like Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, even they know this.
So I guess it’s back to defendinmg aginst the incremental creep of the"common sense regulations" du jour.
In the meantime, cower in your homes, whine/beg/pule like a useless jackoff on the internet, while the rest of us enjoy target shooting and hunting, and enjoy our Constitutionally protected right.
Since you cannot be bothered to learn about those things that you would so willingly ban, you’ll have to forgive us for not being interested in allowing you to determine what is “normal” or not. There are plenty here and other places who would gladly give you the 101 level course in basic firearms identification and function without attempting to make you feel dumb.
That is the tactic you have adopted to “protect” yourself from the rest of civilization. You want it to be about how much knowledge one has about technical specifications of weaponry and not about the absurdity of having such weapons in a civilized nation. It comes across time and time again and it is painfully obvious that it is a curtain you all hide behind whenever the subject comes up.
