I feel like the title of the thread answers itself?
Is the founder of Handgun Control, Inc. now known as the Brady Campaign an “influential quoted person”? From Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.):
That may have been in response to the 1994 AWB, but it wasn’t Feinstein’s first foray into wanting to ban guns. In 1982 when Feinstein was Mayor of SF, she proposed and signed an ordinance banning all handguns in the city. It was later overturned.
Is “completely taking away guns” the only thing that should be opposed? My state just passed a law confiscating many of the magazines I own. Should I be okay with that? My only recourse is through the courts which could take a long time and is uncertain, or if there is some kind of national law passed. That would never happen under Clinton, but it may under Trump. Anyone proposing any additional gun control is a deal breaker. Gun people vote in blocks and vote in every election.
I don’t smoke, but I vote against cigarette taxes. Just because I don’t make over $2M/year doesn’t mean i can’t be opposed to the concept in principle.
Americans who are afraid of guns being removed vote Republican because
a) they always blame Democrats, even when Republicans limit guns
b) they don’t understand statistics, and
c) they have no imagination.
a) - see pkbites above, who when called out on Republican presidents limiting firearms, promptly dodges the question.
b) guns cause deaths. Often accidental, often suicidal. But they are not shields. If they were no soldier or police officer or gun-toting gangbanger would ever be hurt or killed.
c) Air superiority has been a key point of warfare for decades, and yet those who insist the need firearms to protect themselves from a tyrannical government never consider that the tyrannical military won’t be willing to call in an airstrike on their position.
If they’re coming to take away your guns, if they’re willing to shoot you, there is no reason to think they’re not willing to escalate.
Besides, with today’s current attitude toward news and reality, President XXX could just state that those killed via an airstrike were actually terrorists who blew themselves up with an IED gone wrong, and anyone showing video of a missile is just repeating anti-American propaganda.
Like hell I did. That is a fucking lie!
Over the years on these boards I have consistently pointed out the anti-gun stances of Republicans regardless of what office they seeked. But especially I consistently attacked W on these boards in '99 and 2000 over his anti-gun statements/stances. And I have posted negative comments over Reagans stupid signing of the 1986 law he signed. But I’ve also went after local Republican pols who were anti-gun rights.
And in this very thread I reminded you of this:
I did not dodge that question and ask that you have some honor and retract your statement!
Shields made it abundantly clear, over and over again, that he was referring ONLY to handguns, which are designed and manufactured for the sole purpose of effectively and efficiently killing human beings. He neither said nor implied any kind of control of any other kind of firearm, which the American people have a constitutional right to possess.
He also said they would need to take one modest step at a time.
Goal posts seem to be shifty. So only in the case where every single firearm is banned is objectionable, is that what you’re saying? So Feinstein successfully passed a law that banned all handguns, and at another point in time she stated she wanted to ban all assault rifles…but that somehow doesn’t count? That’s a strange hurdle you’ve created.
Is it too much to admit that there are people, people with some modicum of influence that actually do want to ban all guns? There’s even more people that want to ban some subset, like all handguns.
In any event, your reasoning about just banning a subset is interesting, but has been obliterated as any meaningful rationale:
You mean arms that are not designed for killing anything? What, Nerf guns?
All this clearly answers the OP. Handguns, “assault weapons”, .50 cal rifles, bolt action rifles (because they can be used as sniper rifles), all semi-autos. All of these at one time or another have been suggested to be banned, all suggested by Democrats. Put these all together and you have pretty much everything. That is why some Americans vote out of fear of losing their guns or losing their choice of gun in the future.
And calling them stupid or that they don’t have a right to such things is not a convincing argument.
How can you possibly construe not forbidding an individual from owning something a type of slavery?
Except, you know, in your first post in this thread, where you blamed Democrats.
Yes, that’s true, but since his first post was the rebuttal of a claim involving Democrats, it would have been a non sequiter to blame Republicans.
Did you know that?
Because the main function of “gun rights” in our society is to convince people to give up all the rights that actually matter for guns.
Everything from free speech to personal survival is less important than the Holy Gun.
You’re just making assertions here. Care to elaborate?
In the fight between legal procedure and accuracy, I prefer accuracy.