Word salad. Gobbledygook ship sale lemon meringue pie. No offence but I really have no idea what you are talking about.
Thanks for the confession. Why do you think lawful gun-owners and Second Amendment supporters think most LW anti-gunners are lying POS with an agenda to ban rifles using fabricated terms like "assault weapons", high capacity magazines and laws that criminalize them letting their 13 year old shoot their single-shot .22 rifle? Why has not LW anti-gunner ever flatly said "If we passed Obama's 2013 gun control bill, then we'd never, ever have to address guns again in the United States"?
"Wrapped in polypipe" like how we deplorables bury are worse case scenario guns and ammo in the ground using PVC pipe ? http://www.instructables.com/id/Waterproof-Underground-PVC-Cache/
There aren't many things that I'm not allowed to own by law. Other than drugs, certain types of radio related equipment and explosives, name some, as I really can't think of any. Gun ownership is one of the most fundamental rights. It's a proxy for the right to self defense, which is part of the right to life.
If libertarians (and liberty minded conservatives) thought people were all good, we wouldn't think we have a need to own guns. My father was a forensic psychiatrist. He saw some of the most evil people that existed in my home state. He was the most adamant advocates for the right to bear arms for that reason. Every person needs to be able to protect themselves from such evils. My Dad's favored self defense weapon was a handgun, followed by a M1 carbine (which functionally isn't much different from an AR-15--it's a light semi-auto with large detachable magazines), followed by a shotgun. There is no good reason for good people to be not allowed to own guns.
Well, the debate right now seems to be more about which types of guns ought to be allowed, and of course how easily one should be able to obtain them. Handguns and shotguns aren't as problematic as the assault rifles, seems to me, where these mass shootings are concerned. Greater restriction in this area might be prudent and save lives.
We have regulations of guns. The majority of us accept the existing regulations, although most of them do almost nothing to stop criminals from using guns. There is no way to stop criminals from having guns without stopping the law-abiding from having guns. Not allowing the law-abiding to have guns simply empowers the strongest, fittest criminals. It's not coincidence that the rise of democracy is associated with the invention of the gun.
Most mass shootings (as most murders) are committed by handguns. Why are the gun banners focused on "assault type" rifles, when even in a year like 2016 (Orlando nightclub shooting) they (and all other rifles) were responsible for 374 murders, while handguns were responsible for almost 20 times as many--about 7,000 murders. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls
Meaning the Australian government passed a stupid, unenforceable law forcing many good Australians to become criminals, thus undermining respect for Australian law and their government?
Not slogans but fact. Go back and read your post (#26). Your situation was "If you were a police officer and assigned to go after a violent felony offender, which would you more fear?" My response was "If you have to apprehend a man, a desperate man with a knife is just as dangerous as a desperate man with a firearm." Remember, you said "apprehend", which means you physically take control of the man. Its common knowledge through experience and realistic tests that a man with a knife who gets within about 15 feet (cops say 21 feet) of you is as dangerous as a man with a firearm. And there are a whole lot of dead people all over the world, killed by 5.56, who would disagree with your bias against 5.56 and AR-15s.
I already answered this above somewhere. As a legal matter, when the weapon departs substantially from the weapon the framers had in mind for maintaining membership in a well regulated militia, I have no problem with its licensure. That would exclude bazookas and Rpg's and fully auto rifles and pistols. I have no particular problem with a sawed off shotgun. This kind of stuff can't be easily legislated. Every regulation will be subject to challenge and the courts will have to work it out as best they can. If certain types of weapons are restricted too much by too many courts, it will become unprofitable to continue manufacturing them. How you stop AK's from coming in from abroad by gun runners I have no idea. We do the best we can. As a practical matter, I don't work about licensing vehicles or guns kept exclusively on a farm just because "they can shoot across your property line." If you're homicidal or that crazy, I prefer that your local community simply keep an eye on you. They can seek an injunction against you if you become threatening or mentally unstable, and you can seek confiscation of the gun as a judicial remedy. As it stands, I am unfamiliar with farmers or ranchers who have time to shoot their neighbors with their rifles. If they do, I don't think the local police will have too much trouble solving the case. It ain't perfect, but it's better than giving the ATF or Homeland Security as much power as you sound like you would like.
Granted, it looks like semi-auto handguns are also a major problem: https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/ Might want to restrict those also. Looks like it would do a lot to curb gun deaths if successful.
We'll be locking up the entire southside of Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Houston and Dallas. I think we have more of a social problem than a gun problem. If people are determined to kill each other, they'll do it.
They will try to do it. The issue at hand is curbing their ability to do it successfully and with such high casualty rates. Imagine those gang bangers with nothing but shotguns and revolvers at their disposal! Or hunting rifles! Yet these weapons are just fine for home defense.
The problem is that the semi-automatic handgun is the most efficient form of self defense possible. That's why policemen carry semi-automatic handguns. Unfortunately, the characteristics for being good for criminal use and for self defense are identical.
Say "the semi-automatic handgun is the most efficient portable form of self defense possible" and I'd agree with you. At home, a shotgun or AK is a better form of self-defense....but I keep a 1911 .45 next to my head along with a 12 gauge in the bedroom corner at home. In a car, yes, a handgun. Agreed on the criminal element.
The problem is that gangbangers will never be limited to shotguns and revolvers and hunting rifles. In Mexico, it's almost impossible for a civilian to buy a gun. The gangbangers there are buying military weapons (not military style weapons, actual military weapons). Also, the first real psychotic type mass shooting in the modern U.S. was done with a shotgun, hunting rifles, a revolver and two semi-automatic handguns (not used). (the Texas Tower shooting).
Where do those Latin American crooks get all that? I'm sure they have well-established channels (and a lot of money, thanks in no small part to the crap they smuggle up here). Here, I think it's most important that the police be armed to handle them, not so much the rest of us. Haven't got a gangster anywhere remotely near my place, anyway.
Is that addressed to L610? If "Trump is Hitler" (he isn't), then those who think that he is shouldn't willingly surrender their guns to the government he controls. You don't understand that? It's a matter of self defense.
In one of these gun threads, I've written about my father, who was a forensic psychiatrist, meaning he treated the criminally insane. He interviewed a lot of evil and sick people in his line of work. He was also the person I know who was most in favor of the individual right to keep and bear arms. Why? He knew that evil exists, and the best way to defend yourself from that evil is a gun. With strict gun control, the only people that end up without a gun are the law-abiding. The stricter the gun control, the worse it is for the law-abiding. I'd rather that not happen. What to me is fascinating, is that we are at historically low levels of violent crime in this country, despite the fact that we've had about ten years of spree gun buying. Increased numbers of guns in the hands of the law-abiding is not causing problems. The problem is that we are not prosecuting criminals to the full extent of the law. I'm all for harshly punishing those who use a gun in the commision of crime.
Well, on the other hand, we have a lot more per capita crime and gun-related violence and fatality than other developed countries, like our neighbor to the north and our neighbors across the pond. Both ponds, really. So, we debate endlessly whether taking away the preferred weapons of the gun criminals would make a difference. It's hard to say. Certainly there is something to be said for the cultural differences, though I can't help but feel that the availability of guns that we have at present is also feeding into the violence we experience, that these people would not engage in the violent crimes that they do now if they did not have these weapons available. The cycle of violence and death in gang culture might well subside if they couldn't get those weapons, as they would lose the option to carry on with it. The threat they feel from their enemies would be reduced or eliminated. In turn, our police could also relax more and not face the street warfare that they do now.
No civil war......to conquer a people, you have to go house to house. American military will not do that to its own people. That would upend the Constitution. The government would have to enlist UN troops with the "blue helmets". They would make extremely good targets.
