gun show loophole rant
Quote: rxwineAs to what a Constitutional right encompasses or doesn't (Beethoven) that's not up to you or me. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.
That's very true, although the Supreme has been wrong in the past (i.e. Dred Scott, Plessy, etc).
Quote: rxwineEven the conservative members endorse some form of gun control at state levels.
As do I. I believe that criminals and the mentally insane should not have guns, but that law-abiding citizens' 2nd Amendment rights "shall not be infringed".
Quote: rxwineFurthermore, changes occur in the application of rights and clarifications occur without even getting to new ammendments.
As long as they are in accordance with the Constitution, then there is no need for a new amendment.
Quote: rxwineWell, the first part is exactly the kind of point I was going for. As to the second, I didn't mention anything about not being able to own a gun at all.
Well I think that's the bitch in all this. You may not be suggesting the second part, but all the grabbers in legislation are. Probably 95% of the reason I sometimes turn into a jerk in this thread (I had to edit my previous post at least 5 times, and it's still kind of sharp) is because that's exactly what they're trying to do.
But I dig what your saying. Hell, I even proposed my own "fairy tale" set of rules in this thread, which included much of what you're suggesting. But in reality, there's no way to implement such a thing. Insurance works from a financial standpoint. It has nothing to do with safety. If you wanted to charge more a-la the insurance model and ding the demographic that commits more gun crime, charge maybe 6 times retail to all black men 18-34... could you imagine the outrage? Plus that opens it up for abuse, which you know the gov would do, in trying to price folks out of the game. Then there's the whole "...shall not be infringed" issue. And on top of it all, it still wouldn't make a lick of difference. You think the gang bangers even know the retail cost of a firearm?
I imagine somewhere out there, there is an answer. Or at least something that will lead us down a path toward the answer. But the current solution either A) takes my guns, or B) makes me a criminal. For me and most of my peers, it has been "B". In one fell swoop here in NY, it has created 1,000,000+ more illegal guns, has created several hundred thousands more criminals, is already wasting my tax dollars in charging and attempting to convict non-violent men who have a metal box with springs in them, has already wasted $44mm on a balistic fingerprinting program that held yielded 0 returns, and has made not one iota of difference whatsoever.
And I'm supposed to go along with more legislation? I might have brain damage, but I'm still capable of critical thinking. And that dog don't hunt.
Quote: Beethoven9thThat's very true, although the Supreme has been wrong in the past (i.e. Dred Scott, Plessy, etc).
Taney declined to legislate from the bench in Scott v Sandford. While the opinion in Dred Scott was distasteful, especially with 150-ish years gone by, it wasn't wrong.
The real reason slavery existed is the white man had ships and guns and the African negroes didn't.
I'll keep my guns. You can keep your slavery.
Quote: QuadDeucesI'll keep my guns. You can keep your slavery.
The last sentence makes no sense coming from a supporter of Dred Scott.
Quote: QuadDeucesQuote: Beethoven9thThat's very true, although the Supreme has been wrong in the past (i.e. Dred Scott, Plessy, etc).
Taney declined to legislate from the bench in Scott v Sandford. While the opinion in Dred Scott was distasteful, especially with 150-ish years gone by, it wasn't wrong.
The real reason slavery existed is the white man had ships and guns and the African negroes didn't.
I'll keep my guns. You can keep your slavery.
Actually it existed because Africans were willing to trade other Africans for rum.
Quote: FaceInsurance works from a financial standpoint. It has nothing to do with safety.
Wait, so having one of those car alarms that everybody ignores does not protect my vehicle from them, but is rather only a way to save 5% on my auto-insurance costs? You don't say!
Quote: AZDuffman
Actually it existed because Africans were willing to trade other Africans for rum.
Thats what I was going to say. It existed because Africans
were willing to capture other Africans and sell them as
slaves. People act like the ships pulled up and went chasing
them down in the jungle. It was a sophisticated system
of trade, the victims were already slaves to the Africans
who captured them.
Quote: AZDuffmanActually it existed because Africans were willing to trade other Africans for rum.
You can justify anything with that reason. Someone makes something available doesn't let you off the hook one iota for buying it. (human flesh for eating, child prostitution, chicken mcnuggets)
Quote: rxwineYou can justify anything with that reason. Someone makes something available doesn't let you off the hook one iota for buying it. (human flesh for eating, child prostitution, chicken mcnuggets)
You are definitely correct in that rationale, although the way it is portrayed in American schools and taught to our youth only tells the buy-side of the story, not the sell-side. We can agree in that there is wrong all around on this issue, which is one of the reason the end of the slave trade was scheduled to end 20 years after the ratification of the constitution.
Quote: Gabes22Also an early Congressional bill authored by Thomas Jefferson which outlawed the slave trade 20 years after the Constitution was ratified. July 4, 1807 there were many people were counting down to that date, and celebrated it thinking it would end the practice of slavery. As we all know it didn't, it just encouraged those who owned slaves to encourage breeding between the slaves because they couldn't legally buy them in the slave trade after that date.
This only affected importation. The internal slave trade was vibrant.
Quote: Beethoven9thThe last sentence makes no sense coming from a supporter of Dred Scott.
Low threshold of tolerance for people who spout nonsense. Have you ever actually READ Dred Scott? Fascinating. Taney had no choice as it is PLAINLY obvious that the framers did not intend to include the slaves in the term "Citizen" or else slavery would have been a violation of their rights as such.
Dred Scott was not legally flawed. It has not been overturned. It has been rendered largely irrelevant by the 13th and 14th Amendments.
The highly trained owner of the shotgun who is a competition shotgun shooter is able to reload shotgun shells in a stress-free environment pretty quickly. Impressive. I wonder how many takes that took to get right. Sometimes things don't go well, even in a stress-free environment:Quote: FaceThink in your head... how long is it from the time you detect a threat to the time the calvary arrives? If you're at my place, it's 15-20 minutes. Downtown, maybe <15 minutes. City? 10, maybe? Right near the courthouse? Maybe 2, they just got to run outside, right?
Look at this. Fast forward to 2:12 for my point
For those who don't watch videos, it's a highly trained police officer shooting himself in the foot while telling a room full of children not to play with guns.
Face owns guns, does that mean that he will shoot himself or others while cleaning his guns? Probably not.
I don't own any guns so will I ever shoot myself or others while cleaning my guns? No.
If an armed mob of angry people attack, will Face survive? Maybe.
If an armed mob of angry people attack, will I survive? Maybe.
So far, I see no upside to owning a gun, just an increased probability of getting killed or injured or killing or injuring someone else just while cleaning it:
Fatal cleaning in Ohio
Sailor injured in cleaning incident in Washington State
This guy in Wyoming was medivac'd to Billings after a cleaning incident
This poor kid in Indiana, snuffed out in a cleaning incident
This guy injured his brother in a cleaning incident
That was just since the beginning of this month. Five incidents in half a month and that was just while cleaning the guns. Don't believe me! Go to Google News and search on "Gun Cleaning", you'd think someone declared war! But I don't actually care about the dumbf*cks with the guns who kill themselves or their loved ones. Lesson learned, right? I care more about keeping these weapons out of the hands of the slightly less sane who would take four 30 round clips and an AR15 into an elementary school and splatter the brains of children all over the Tree of Liberty for Freedom. At least if the guy had been limited to 10 rounds per clip, he would have had to reload 11 times instead of just 3 to fire the same number of bullets. Perhaps the extra fumbling would have given a few of those kids a chance to escape and live. Or even better, if that guy had been limited to a competition shotgun with just 8 shells per reload, maybe a few of those children in Connecticut would still be alive today.
To be fair, now let's look at all of the Angry Mob incidents that took place in the United States in March:
(sound of crickets)
(Pretty thoughtful and insightful for my 2000th post. At least I think so)
Quote: s2dbaker(Pretty thoughtful and insightful for my 2000th post. At least I think so)
I agree. I much prefer this to your one-sentence shots across the bow.
And I won't even argue the points you made, they're all pretty good and are short on typical grabber hysteria. In fact, I'll even join your camp. I too want to keep weapons out of the hands of the less sane.
I just must ask - how? Our great state has outlawed them, yet I still have them, as do many of my friends. I can pop across the border and grab up an AK with a 30 round clip for a few hundred dollars, toss it under my seat, and be home playing with it in under 2 hours. Some states, Wyoming and Kentucky off the top of my head at least, have passed laws already that will jail a federal agent that attempts to enforce these bullshit gun laws in their state, which should stand in court due to the 10th amendment. These laws apply only to mags manufactured and kept entirely within those states borders, but c'mon, you can see where I'm going. These mags will always exist, no matter the federal law, and will always be able to be procured by the crims. Then there's the untold tens if not hundreds of millions of these mags already in circulation, and the additional millions on store shelves across the nation.
Getting rid of them is not an option. Forget wishes and desires, which side of the aisle we each stand, it's a technical impossibility. So how do we do it?
I don't see how a law can. I can see a metric ton of reasons it can't. If you supported or even voted for NYSAFE, I believe in my heart it's because you want to live in a safe NY. But you must understand, all you've done was make me a criminal. And if I had chosen to rid myself of mags to protect my freedom, those mags, which were 100% guaranteed to do almost nothing but put holes in paper, would now have the possibility of falling in the hands of a psychopath or ne'er-do-well.
Quote: s2dbakerpolice officer shooting himself in the foot while telling a room full of children not to play with guns.
That was a highly effective training video. Did you notice how the kids were instantly skeptical about the next "unloaded" gun he requested after shooting himself in the foot?
Quote: FaceSome states, Wyoming and Kentucky off the top of my head at least, have passed laws already that will jail a federal agent that attempts to enforce these bullshit gun laws in their state, which should stand in court due to the 10th amendment. These laws apply only to mags manufactured and kept entirely within those states borders, but c'mon, you can see where I'm going.
I am pro-gun, but you are quite wrong about the state laws purporting to invalidate federal laws. The courts will strike these down immediately. Right or wrong the 10th amendment has been interpreted as a truism (repeating that the federal government may only act via enumerated powers) that doesn't have independent binding force.
Quote: bbvk05I am pro-gun, but you are quite wrong about the state laws purporting to invalidate federal laws. The courts will strike these down immediately. Right or wrong the 10th amendment has been interpreted as a truism (repeating that the federal government may only act via enumerated powers) that doesn't have independent binding force.
Finally! Thank you, bbvk05. My statement was a bit of parroting what I heard as well as my own totally-not-a-lawyer understanding. Thanks for clearing it up.
But the problem remains, how do you get X0,000,000 million mags out of circulation?
Quote: QuadDeucesQuote: Beethoven9thThe last sentence makes no sense coming from a supporter of Dred Scott.
Low threshold of tolerance for people who spout nonsense. Have you ever actually READ Dred Scott? Fascinating. Taney had no choice as it is PLAINLY obvious that the framers did not intend to include the slaves in the term "Citizen" or else slavery would have been a violation of their rights as such.
Have you ever actually READ the dissents by Justices Curtis and McLeans to Dred Scott? Fascinating. There was no constitutional basis for the claim that blacks couldn't be citizens. As you well know, when the Constitution was ratified black men could vote in five of the thirteen states, so they were citizens in their respective states.
Quote: QuadDeucesDred Scott was not legally flawed. It has not been overturned.
Circular argument. If decisions that haven't been overturned are by definition "not legally flawed", then no cases could ever be overturned.
Taney forced them to apply the proper method of change - a war then amending the Constitution - instead of going with popular opinion and, as I said before, legislating from the bench.
Keep your powder dry.
Quote: s2dbakerFace owns guns, does that mean that he will shoot himself or others while cleaning his guns? Probably not.
I don't own any guns so will I ever shoot myself or others while cleaning my guns? No.
So far, I see no upside to owning a gun, just an increased probability of getting killed or injured or killing or injuring someone else just while cleaning it:
s2dbaker owns cars, does that mean that he will drink & drive? Probably not.
I don't own any cars so will I ever drink & drive? No.
So far, I see no upside to owning a car, just an increased probability of getting killed or injured or killing or injuring someone else when driving drunk.
Quote: QuadDeucesYes, I've read the dissents. They are not the opinion of the court.
Um...yes they are. FYI, there are 'majority opinions' and 'dissenting opinions'; theirs is the latter. (Dude, this is Law 101)
...and your earlier argument is still circular.
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: QuadDeucesThey are not the opinion of the court.
Um...yes they are. FYI, there are 'majority opinions' and 'dissenting opinions'; theirs is the latter. (Dude, this is Law 101)
Before I waste any more time responding to you, your exercise is to produce one (1) example of a dissenting opinion that is also titled "Opinion of the Court" like the majority opinions.
Keep backtracking on that.....and on your (earlier) circular argument.
Quote: QuadDeucesBefore I waste any more time responding to you, your exercise is to produce one (1) example of a dissenting opinion that is also titled "Opinion of the Court" like the majority opinions.
1) I never made that claim.
2) That's not what you had originally claimed. (Nice try)
But even so, looking at the big picture, I still don't understand your point. Saying that a dissent is incorrect simply because it isn't the majority opinion is another silly argument. Basically what you're saying is that the majority opinion is always right. (If this were true, no decision would ever get overturned)
Quote: FaceFinally! Thank you, bbvk05. My statement was a bit of parroting what I heard as well as my own totally-not-a-lawyer understanding. Thanks for clearing it up.
But the problem remains, how do you get X0,000,000 million mags out of circulation?
These gun control efforts are a complete waste of time. They are focused on restricting gun culture and burdening typical gun owners, such as the proposed restrictions on private sales, which aren't a serious problem. That's a pretty big right to give up for no real benefit.
The assault weapons legislation is focused almost entirely on the class of guns used the least often in crimes. It is unfortunate that the legislation is backed only by people who are from ban states and have no idea what they are talking about.
If you wanted to do something serious about gun homocides you would focus on small handguns. Heavy criminal penalties for posessing a handgun without a license would totally work. Not registration or some other stupid scheme to burden gum owners... licenses to own. One license, you can own any gun. The criminal element would be risking major league penalties to carry guns. Not that I would support this legislation, but it would at least accomplish the stated goal, rather than wasting everyone's time and money and only catching people that didn't really do anything wrong
You don't. You let the ones that exist stay where they are. It doesn't guarantee that they will never be used in a mass killing spree but it does reduce the chances over time that a lunatic will get a hold of one at his or her whim. You can't get rid of the weapons of mass murder but you can make people somewhat safer from their destructive effects. That's the goal here; not perfection, progress.Quote: Facehow do you get X0,000,000 million mags out of circulation?
The laws are designed to mitigate the kind of destruction that happened in Newtown, CT. There will always be gun crime and a lot of that gun crime will be committed by previously law abiding citizens. However, if the lunatic who shot up all the children had a dozen handguns hidden in a trench coat instead of an AR15 with four 30 round clips then his task would have been considerably more difficult or at least clumsy. If he only had handguns, the guns may not have had enough destructive force to blow away that glass that was keeping him out of the locked school. One or more may have jammed. The teachers in the classrooms further down the hall may have had enough time to hide all of the children.Quote: bbvk05The assault weapons legislation is focused almost entirely on the class of guns used the least often in crimes.
You can't have perfection but you can make progress toward that goal and no one will have their right to own a gun taken away.
Quote: rxwineYou can justify anything with that reason. Someone makes something available doesn't let you off the hook one iota for buying it. (human flesh for eating, child prostitution, chicken mcnuggets)
The point of my statement isn't to "let someone off the hook," it is about historical accuracy. We teach in school that "all these white people went to Africa and took their people as slaves" as if slavery didn't exist in Africa until white people started it. The reality is slavery existed in Africa before the transatlantic slave trade and still does today. If not for willing African tribes who sold their people for rum it would have been impossible.
I'm just a little tired of the racist way history is being taught in regards to it. It is portrayed as only whites were the bad guys. Africans sold their own people. Indians owned slaves. Even some blacks owned slaves.
Quote: s2dbaker
That was just since the beginning of this month. Five incidents in half a month and that was just while cleaning the guns. Don't believe me! Go to Google News and search on "Gun Cleaning", you'd think someone declared war!
You believe people hurt themselves while cleaning their guns?
Do you also believe the Easter Bunny will come later this month?
It is next to impossible to hurt yourself or someone else while cleaning your gun. To say it happened is the oldest dodge around.
"He was cleaning his gun and it went off."
"The boy fell down and I tried to help him up."
"The soldier slipped on a bar of soap."
Perhaps, but I've given five recent examples to back up my dodge and yet I rarely if ever see anyone successfully defend themselves in a robbery attempt with a gun. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, just that you're more likely to die from cleaning your gun than by getting killed while unarmed by a mugger.Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: s2dbaker
That was just since the beginning of this month. Five incidents in half a month and that was just while cleaning the guns. Don't believe me! Go to Google News and search on "Gun Cleaning", you'd think someone declared war!
You believe people hurt themselves while cleaning their guns?
Do you also believe the Easter Bunny will come later this month?
It is next to impossible to hurt yourself or someone else while cleaning your gun. To say it happened is the oldest dodge around.
How would the slave trade be doing in Africa if there wasn't a demand for it in the United States? Read Louis XIV's Code Noir. His "code" also applied for Louisiana. The Code dictates how black slaves should be treated and is extremely racist.
On the other hand, the Europeans who originally came to America were out for one thing: profit. This is the overwhelming reason for slavery. The end product of this desire for profit was slavery.
They tried indentured servants where people where paid to do work but when the contract was up they would inevitably leave, so the owners made up crimes to keep them under their control. But with justice evolving, it became tiresome. The new Americans looked for another solution.
Then they thought of enslaving Irish people but their laws prevented that (their laws were enforceable). Then they enslaved Native Americans, but that didn't work out because of their propensity to caputre European diseases and they knew the land too well. Then they enslaved British prisoners who were sentenced to death, but that didn't work out either (they tried to escape, stealing everything in their path).
"Black" slavery took hold starting in Virginia in 1661 and in 1662, Virginia passed a law stating that children had the status of their mother, which therefore engrained generations of slaves. Maryland in 1663 passed a law declaring that all blacks were slaves. Once these laws were passed, racism took hold, and given that the Africans were collecting and selling slaves free of rights, it created a market where slaves were imported. And because the slaves were being sold by their own people, it gave their owners the "justification" to own and treat the slaves like shit. Laws were created then that made the slaves' lives harder.
So yeah, the history of slavery as taught in school is wrong and oversimplified. But did the motive for profit lead to slavery then racism? Absolutely.
And that's the problem with this issue. The cat's out of the bag with America's gun culture. There are plenty of studies out there that show that guns create more murders and there are also studies out there that show that guns prevent murders. All studies lead to conclusions that we want to hear and support either side. Hence the debate.
None of us are smart enough to figure out who is right and who is wrong. Does something need to be done? Absolutely.
I don't have the gun culture because I don't have the possession culture. I believe that the collective odds of me shooting someone or getting into an accident with an owned fun is far greater than the collective need I will have to use a gun for self-defence for the rest of my life. Therefore I don't own a gun. Other people may be wiser, and of course myself I'll be shooting myself in the foot (and the head) if tomorrow night, an intruder comes into my house and decides to rape my wife. But then again, it is about as likely (here) that I would be struck by lightning... doesn't mean I go out swinging my 3 iron in the middle of a thunderstorm.
But that's my *opinion*. And of course, I think it would be much better that other people didn't own guns either if I exude my logic to other people. But I recognize their right to be stupid, just like the courts in New York overrode Bloomburg's law to control stupidity.
The first thing I'm doing when I get off the plane in LGA tomorrow is having a big gulp from the first 7-11 I can find. Yee-haw!
Quote: boymimbo
The first thing I'm doing when I get off the plane in LGA tomorrow is having a big gulp from the first 7-11 I can find. Yee-haw!
Better hurry. Soon Bloomberg will suggest a compromise where they just hide the big cups so the kiddies can't see them for sale.
Quote: boymimboNone of us are smart enough to figure out who is right and who is wrong. Does something need to be done? Absolutely.
When someone says this is when I truly get fearful about what is coming down the pike. It seems a lot of people want something done for the sake of something being done. The 227 year history of this nation is littered with well-intentioned (at best) legislation that fails to accomplish what it is set out to do. When we have a clamor to "just do something" that is precisely how we get bills that magically add tens of billions of dollars overnight. These are the bills, when we must do something that get loaded with pork and crap that we don't need. We we give our government a mandate that we have to do something, we might as well send them a formal invitation to infiltrate our lives even further than we already do.
Quote: s2dbakerPerhaps, but I've given five recent examples to back up my dodge and yet I rarely if ever see anyone successfully defend themselves in a robbery attempt with a gun. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, just that you're more likely to die from cleaning your gun than by getting killed while unarmed by a mugger.Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: s2dbaker
That was just since the beginning of this month. Five incidents in half a month and that was just while cleaning the guns. Don't believe me! Go to Google News and search on "Gun Cleaning", you'd think someone declared war!
You believe people hurt themselves while cleaning their guns?
Do you also believe the Easter Bunny will come later this month?
It is next to impossible to hurt yourself or someone else while cleaning your gun. To say it happened is the oldest dodge around.
You want an example?
EVERY SINGLE INNOCENT VICTIM WHO HAS BEEN RAPED, ASSULTED, MURDERED, OR WORSE IN THE PAST MONTH, unless they are mentally slow, wished they had had a gun to protect themselves.
I have no idea on this families views on guns, but go ahead and try and to convince me the dead mom, if still alive, wouldn't have wanted a Glock, AR-15 and a grenade launcher on March 14, 2013 to protect her 10 year old daughter from being raped.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/15/albany-carjacking-rape-stabbing/1991791/
No biggie, though, because good 'ol s2dbaker's daughter didn't get raped last week, right?
Good thing she didn't have a gun, because she would be dead, with a hole in her foot, instead of just regular dead.
Quote: boymimbo"I'm just a little tired of the racist way history is being taught".
How would the slave trade be doing in Africa if there wasn't a demand for it in the United States? Read Louis XIV's Code Noir. His "code" also applied for Louisiana. The Code dictates how black slaves should be treated and is extremely racist.
On the other hand, the Europeans who originally came to America were out for one thing: profit. This is the overwhelming reason for slavery. The end product of this desire for profit was slavery.
They tried indentured servants where people where paid to do work but when the contract was up they would inevitably leave, so the owners made up crimes to keep them under their control. But with justice evolving, it became tiresome. The new Americans looked for another solution.
Then they thought of enslaving Irish people but their laws prevented that (their laws were enforceable). Then they enslaved Native Americans, but that didn't work out because of their propensity to caputre European diseases and they knew the land too well. Then they enslaved British prisoners who were sentenced to death, but that didn't work out either (they tried to escape, stealing everything in their path).
"Black" slavery took hold starting in Virginia in 1661 and in 1662, Virginia passed a law stating that children had the status of their mother, which therefore engrained generations of slaves. Maryland in 1663 passed a law declaring that all blacks were slaves. Once these laws were passed, racism took hold, and given that the Africans were collecting and selling slaves free of rights, it created a market where slaves were imported. And because the slaves were being sold by their own people, it gave their owners the "justification" to own and treat the slaves like shit. Laws were created then that made the slaves' lives harder.
So yeah, the history of slavery as taught in school is wrong and oversimplified. But did the motive for profit lead to slavery then racism? Absolutely.
So now we are going to blame "profit" for more ills?
Sorry to break your bubble, but racism is a natural human condition and found in places where profit is an unknown term. I am also a bit sick of it always being implied whites are the only racist race in the world, as if whites invented it. But there is do much to be gained by playing the race card that there will be no real solution.
But I for one think anyone who commits suicide should be subject to the death penalty.
Quote: Buzzard" Murder and suicide also have the same result (i.e. dead bodies).....but they're completely different. "
But I for one think anyone who commits suicide should be subject to the death penalty.
After all they go thru life in prison is good enough for me.
If you gave me the authority, I can make a gazillion laws to make us safer, live longer, etc.... That should NOT be the purpose of our government...
Yes, you are correct and I think I mentioned that I don't care how many f*cktards off themselves by cleaning their guns. The point is trying to make it a little more difficult for a lunatic to murder dozens of children.Quote: SOOPOOs2dbaker's point about how more people may get injured by guns than are saved by them, even if true, is irrelevant. Read about how many people are killed or paralyzed in skiing accidents. Do you want to ban skiing? How about the people killed because the plane crashed into their house? Do you want to ban small aircraft flying? Cigarettes? Alcohol? 32 ounce sodas?
If you gave me the authority, I can make a gazillion laws to make us safer, live longer, etc.... That should NOT be the purpose of our government...
Quote: s2dbakerThe laws are designed to mitigate the kind of destruction that happened in Newtown, CT. There will always be gun crime and a lot of that gun crime will be committed by previously law abiding citizens. However, if the lunatic who shot up all the children had a dozen handguns hidden in a trench coat instead of an AR15 with four 30 round clips then his task would have been considerably more difficult or at least clumsy. If he only had handguns, the guns may not have had enough destructive force to blow away that glass that was keeping him out of the locked school. One or more may have jammed. The teachers in the classrooms further down the hall may have had enough time to hide all of the children.
You can't have perfection but you can make progress toward that goal and no one will have their right to own a gun taken away.
Connecticut was already a banstate. The AR15 was either AWB compliant or grandfathered, which demonstrates that the AWB you appear to be backing does little to nothing.
You are obviously intelligent, but your lack of familiarity with guns shows. Handguns wouldn't have the force to blow away the glass? Give me a break. Your goal is to put more handguns in the hands of mass shooters and hopes it works out for the best? Virginia Tech was committed with one weak handgun (G19) and one extremely weak handgun (P22).
I know that you know that you are wildly speculating, but you should keep in mind that this kind of reality-free conjecture is not a way to figure out how to craft laws. Handguns are a serious problem in homicides. "Assault rifles" are a drop in the bucket. I am willing to at least LISTEN to proposals that would have a real impact. Proposals that try to burden me for no benefit are correctly resisted. Fortunately these current asinine proposals are failing entirely.
Quote: s2dbakerYes, you are correct and I think I mentioned that I don't care how many f*cktards off themselves by cleaning their guns. The point is trying to make it a little more difficult for a lunatic to murder dozens of children.
Why not just make murder and attempted murder illegal?
You can claim otherwise all you want. Your post history shows you do not like guns and do not like that people choose to keep them.
I would at least respect you if you simply stated, "I don't think anyone should have the freedom to have a gun."
I'm actually not concerned about earning your respect. Actually, if I did, I would very disappointed. Don't you have some guns to go clean?Quote: AZDuffmanWhy not just make murder and attempted murder illegal?
You can claim otherwise all you want. Your post history shows you do not like guns and do not like that people choose to keep them.
I would at least respect you if you simply stated, "I don't think anyone should have the freedom to have a gun."
Quote: s2dbakerYou can't have perfection but you can make progress toward that goal and no one will have their right to own a gun taken away.
My argument to that is it’s not really progress, at least not in a measurable way. They stopped making Chevy Cavaliers in 2005; not a day goes by that I see more than one. And that’s a shitbox car that I can’t believe ran in the first place, yet here we are, 8 years later, and they’re still everywhere. And they’re getting run down and wore out by the minute. Want one? They’re as easy to acquire as a cheeseburger.
Now a mag, they hardly get used. They’re not rusting out, running down. How long do you think it’ll take to see a noticeable decrease in their availability? A local boy just got nabbed 15 minutes away from my house. If the charges stick, that’s ~$100,000 in incarceration plus trial, and 5 mags are off the street. 5 down, still tens of millions to go. Companies like Magpul are leaving their restrictive states and setting up elsewhere, and they’re going to continue to churn out mags. They’re even increasing production to meet demand. 50+ manufacturers are doing the same.
I appreciate your desire, but you must understand that an attempt to rid is hopeless. It is not the answer and it simply cannot work. It exactly what bbvk said, it’s doing something for the sake of doing something, with no basis in reality.
In other news, assault weapons ban dropped from gun bill
Quote: s2dbakerI'm actually not concerned about earning your respect. Actually, if I did, I would very disappointed. Don't you have some guns to go clean?
Well maybe be concerned about respect for ones self and say what you actually believe?
As to cleaning guns I haven't been shooting in quite some time so my gun is still in good order, why do you ask?
