Reply With Quote
This is just keeps circling back to dmc's Strawman of gun confiscation.
He waives off any other idea and just says "that won't help. You have to resort to confiscation." And then gets to say confiscation is bad
There's no such as a high capacity gun, Blake. Are you being intentionally obtuse and think it's cute? There are high capacity magazines. It's like saying a high runtime cordless drill. It's the battery, not the drill. The gun is a gun, same as any gun. It's the magazine that allows 30 rounds to be fired in succession without reload, and when reload happens, it's very fast. The gun is just a gun.
This is just keeps circling back to dmc's Strawman of gun confiscation.
He waives off any other idea and just says "that won't help. You have to resort to confiscation." And then gets to say confiscation is bad
Of course. Laws are useless unless they can prevent any breakage of those laws. That's why all drugs are legal and there are no speed limits.
You just said that sales will increase as legislation is being debated after the proposal of the bill, which is what I was responding to. Are you telling me the 1986 ban was enacted as surprise legislation that no one saw coming? , then let's do it with this legislation too. Certainly seems to be the strategy for Trumpcare and the tax cuts.
That has six bullets. I can ignore it, and any legislation likely would too.If your goal is to prevent an individual from having the power to kill a lot of other people in short amount of time, you cannot ignore speedloaders for revolvers.
Semi-auto is a specific that only you are interested in.If your goal is to introduce a placebo bill that talks about semi-autos, you're just being the cog in the machine that keeps this thing ramping up.
That was a typo. I meant demand will increase. My mistake.What will cause this, what law? No new manufacturing? How will that increase supply? Someone who wants a gun more will pay more for it. Sounds like it would have guns in the hands of people willing to pay everything for it.
Cutting off manufacturing increases demand by reducing supply. Costs go up. The last sentence is a total hypothetical that has no historical example.
Nope, all or nothing is not a necessary next step. It's a distraction.That's the problem, the "somewhere" is making it worse not better. You fuel fear and that creates more demand for guns. Either ban guns or don't. The first step is getting a candidate who can win an election who will not cater to the NRA, and a house and senate who will sign off on these things. Good luck with that.
OK, a high capacity magazine.
You gun freaks get so ing bogged down in trivial semantics
Re ed false dilemma
Also murder
I have some gun freak friends with entirely different takes.
They are not at all paranoid about confiscation and they hate the NRA.
But they do realize, as Nono said, that the cat is out of the bag as far as the huge number of guns circulating. "Our" gun nuts (don't see it this way). The guys that live in Texas I know are really just avid hunters and love guns, are not the slightest bit worried about confiscation and slippery slopes. They do however get pissed on panic buys on ammo by other gun freaks.
Yeah it's my own take based on a bunch of friends I go fishing with who also love hunting. Many Gun guys are particularly interested in all the particulars of mechanisms so they can be a good source of info IMO. And fortunately they are very particular about safety because shooting some of these things... it's not some silly movie for them.
Like tipping on take out.
Not like that at all.
Trash's trusted advisor Alex Jones says SS was staged to make Trash look bad
You won't see an intermediate step outside of placebo legislation like the Brady bill or some other ban that really did nothing in the end.
The NFA came about in 1934. In 1986 manufacturing was outlawed (part of FOPA) for machine guns. In 1986 social media didn't exist. The craze didn't really start before social media became a thing.
So you see a bill that says "regulate high capacity guns" and you say "cool, finally" so the law is passed that guns can only fire one bullet at time. Hey, just semantics, right?
Jesus, you ers are so soft. It's a wonder you don't menstruate.
No, the bill would say the guns can only fire so fast and the magazines can only hold so many bullets.
Is this really that hard to understand what I'm saying?
You're the one that needs a gun by his pillow at night, pussy
So you'd jump up and fight the armed intrude or just suck his ?
That bill existed already, dip . It didn't work then and won't work now.
Goddamn you're a dense little .
How many times have you had to fight an armed intruder?
What bill
This bill passed in California.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01520160SB1446
Not sure anyone can say it works or not yet considering it's only about a year old
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-c...y_magazine_ban
Like I said, you're one dumb .
And automatic weapons.
You can take a drill press or similar apparatus and "easily" alter many many semi-autos and yet you do not see a slew of full auto weapons out there. Fact is that it is not as easy as he claims either.
He is disingenuous. I specifically stated that the er interpretation makes confiscation impossible but that taking new guns out of circulation would over time reduce the number of semiautos in the population. Further, people would have a legal alternatives for self protection just not semiautos.
What does he do? Shoehorn the same canned arguments he was using several years ago near verbatim. There is no point in engaging him and giving him credibility.
Point out the part where it didn't work
See thread le.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions