You probably would and they are.
Let’s wait for elucidator to give his opinion.
You’re wrong, but that’s OK, it’s not the first time.
I’m. 100% certain I’m right. I’ve noticed that you’re never at a loss for a personal anecdote that happens to align perfectly with whatever point you’re arguing. I’m sure you’re full of shit.
And I’m certain you are, yet again, wrong. So sorry. Glad you think guns are cool though. 
Not a liberal. Obama is a liberal, I’m a radical lefty. And I have given you my opinion several times, to no noticeable effect. There’s nothing to wait for, you haven’t actually addressed any of those opinions yet, just twisted them like balloon animals to fit the rejoinders you had ready.
You think you could get Ted Nugent to take over for you? He seems a more reasonable kind of guy. Good example to the kids, too. Like, maybe recreational drug use isn’t all that great an idea, but look what happens when you don’t smoke pot! Maybe a bong load once a week or so, so you don’t turn into Ted Nugent!
I have no idea why. My personal feelings about guns in and of.themselves ought to be irrelevant to you. I think elucidator hit it on the head previously when he suggested you were passing along the good news about guns.
I think you love them a little too much. And in that way.
I was tqalking about the federal level. If I took state laws into account, then I would have to contend with New York’s draconian laws. But, the fact of the matter is that you aren’t going to get an AWB; you aren’t going to get a magazine cap, you aren’t going to get national licensing, you aren’t going to get a national registry (not even just for assault weapons), you aren’t going to get much of anything except for a background check and it is possible that the background check requirement will be limited to only gun shows. If you call that winning, I think the NRA is probably not going to be a sore loser.
Yeah, I saw that. I think her analogy is not entirely off base (the NRA might as well be the firearms industry group) but there are a few MAJOR differences. First, the NRA predates this sort of political activity by over a century. In many cases, the gun manufacturers follow the NRA’s lead, that’s right, the gun nuts at the NRA are nuttier than the people that make the guns. The NRA has led the charge and enforced boycotts against gun companies like Smith & Wesson http://cnsnews.com/news/article/smith-wesson-president-admits-consumer-anger-hurting-sales Does that sound like an industry lobbying group to you? The gun makers may not be running this particular asylum, the inmates are.
One part I did find enlightening was the part where the guy from the Brady campaign explained the gun industry’s immunity from lawsuit. I had always thought the immunity was immunity from lawsuits purely based on the fact that their guns were used in a crime (so you couldn’t sue Bushmaster because the Newton killer used a Bushmaster to kill a bunch of people). That would be like suing chrysler because someone ran over your dog in a sebring.
It sounds like they want to sue gun manufacturers for selling firearms to federally licensed firearms dealers or impose design requirements on firearms. If they want to shut down some firearms dealers then that sounds like a job for the ATF or FBI not the gun industry generally to create self imposed limits on who they will sell to when the list of people they can sell to are defined by federal law to include only those people who have a federal firearms license. If they want to force gun manufacturers to put safety devices into a firearm then I’m a bit torn, I like manual safeties, trigger safeties, drop safeties, grip safeties, loaded chamber indicators, etc. I like these things to be consistent (for example, on manual safeties, sometimes up means safe, sometimes up means hot. Sometimes exposed red dot means safe, sometimes it means hot, It seems like some consistency on something like this would be useful) but I don’t know if I would want to mandate all these features on every gun.
Gun manufacturer’s are not totally immune from lawsuit, they can get sued for defective design http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/remington-defective-triggers-lawyer-lawsuit-attorney Remington 700’s have a design defect that sometimes causes a loaded gun to fire without touching the trigger.
We currently have a $2 NICS fee every time you buy a gun, what makes you think they can’t make the NICS fee $500 and yet they haven’t done it. Is there something other than the fear of the slippery slope that would make you object to scenario 2 above?
There are all sorts of statistics and polls that go in all sorts of directions. All we know right now is that the gun control advocates have overplayed their hand and it is making them bitter and desperate. They could have had a magazine cap but they threw it away for an AWB. I think they could have had licensing and registration, but they threw it away chasing an AWB.
The drive for an AWB was damaging to their cause and Feinstein is doing a lot of face saving now. She is trying hard to make it seem like she isn’t a total fucking retard for having squandered the opportunity to get meaningful legislation in order to chase an ineffective AWB.
I think we have read flag desecration to be a legitimate exercise of the first amendment right, same with pacifism. Libel is bad isn’t it?
I have noticed this as well. Its because they are about the only rifles you see at a gun range. Shotguns had a big kick and aren’t pleasant to fire indoors. Handguns are very inaccurate in the hands of a novice. But you can hand almost anyone a rifle and they can hit a paper plate at 50 yards after a few shots. It is much more satisfying for a newbie to hit a paper plate 30 times out of 30 with a rifle at 50 yards than to hit a paper plate 5 out of 15 times with a handgun at 7 yards.
Its an urban view not a liberal view. I think I’m pretty liberal (at least by northern Virginia standards) and I support gun rights I have noticed that people that grew up in the city without much exposure to guns are much more likely to support some of the more over the top proposals floating around. That or they’re women (there seems to be a significant gender gap on the gun control issue).
Don’t tell Kable; he’s been getting pretty excited lately that more women are buying guns than before.
… and he has the youtube videos to PROVE it!
Sure. Or at least, maybe. And that downgrade will last only so long as another Newtown, Columbine, or Aurora doesn’t happen. Do you think that’s likely? I wish I did.
Anybody care to point out all the stupidity in this clip?
(Hint listen for the comment about the legality of hunting humans)
No there’s really not. Mitt? Mitt Romney is that you?
People do not favor gun control out of a fear of the guns themselves. People favor gun control because they lack the pants crapping fear of the world that the gun strokers have. Most people don’t stockpile 37 weapons and fantasize about quick drawing the bad guy. That NRA literature with the scary black faces is targeted at you, not normal people. Normal people are able to perceive risk in a normal fashion.
Which brings me to my own unique gun control proposal:
Let’s make subconscious racism work for the greater good!
Love it
“But, but that’s different! Criminals are already prohibited from owning weapons!”
Gun control proponents are always accusing gun owners of being “afraid”. Yet who regards allowing law-abiding people to own weapons as an existential threat to public safety? It’s anyone who says “how do I know you’re not a psycho who’ll shoot me without warning?” who’s afraid.
They can carry any guns they want, provided that everyone else carries too so that misusing those guns will quickly invoke a dramatic Darwinian selection on the urban population.
Yeah, that always works out well:
This attitude is fucking disgusting.
On both populations, I would imagine. And innocent bystanders. But of course it’s only poor black guys who misuse guns. White guys are totally law-abiding and responsible at all times.
And you wonder why the rest of us are wary of gun advocates. It’s attitudes like this, is why.
Really? Wow. That’s baldly stated. Thanks for being forthright, if nothing else.
I like the assumption that the pasty white guy who shoots paper targets on the weekends is going to out fight a hardcore gangbanger in a Piggly Wiggly gunbattle. 
Someone has been watching too many Charles Bronson movies.