Why do many pro 2ndA just default between all guns v no guns

Evidenced by the fact they will never tell you how much gun control is "enough".

 

You don't know what opinions you've expressed over the past several days in a thread you've participated in?
Perhaps you're right, I don't think I can help a person who is suffering from such a disability as you describe.

 

I noted in a prior post, I had to deal with the odious Sarah Brady when she came to my home town to help the Democrats push a waiting period (several years before Clinton signed the Brady act). she denied up and down that she or her association of constitutional haters wanted anything like bans etc. Well after the city passed the waiting period (which was stupid given there was only one gun shop in the city limits and it sold only to police departments), she was back a couple years later pushing for a city "assault weapons ban". It passed but was later thrown out=one of the moderate republicans who voted for the waiting period called her out and had a transcript of her prior testimony and essentially called her a liar and said I and the other pro gun advocates were correct-that she was actually a hard core banner and she wouldn't stop with just a waiting period.

 

The only disability I suffer from is your incessant trolling of my posts. I get it, you are infatuated with me.

 

Anti-gun loons know they need to lie to get what they want.
:dunno:

 

I have said before I wouldn't get too worked up by an AR-15 ban. I don't think it will help much at this point, but maybe making it harder for mentally ill people to get their fetish weapon will save a few lives. Ultimately, the solution is going to have to be a major overhaul of our mental health laws and system to make it easier and more practical to get nutty people in the nutter house.

 

its easy not to get worked up over a ban that doesn't impact you. It would be akin to me saying I wouldn't get worked up over a ban on homosexual sex or a ban on rap music. The only reason why the AR 15 is a "fetish weapon " to some nutters is because big tech and MSM Talking heads have told them that

 

Irony alert

 

"All bearable arms. No."
- USSC

 

You are correct in that it wouldn't impact me if they ban that particular gun. I am not rabid in my support or opposition to much of anything. They are never going to get handguns because they are too popular in spite of being where the crime really happens. It is all about managing the feels.

 

The SCOTUS changes its mind. Just ask the abortion folks.

 

they don't want to deal with the repercussions if they were to tell 50 million people they are now felons. Every time the scum in office try to ban something, 10 million more of those things are bought-

 

and since abortion isn't a right that one needs to exercise daily, and since most states will keep abortion legal, it doesnt 'have near the impact or create near the backlash that banning the most popular rifle in America would have

 

Responding to your posts when you address me, or the general thread, to point out your opinion is worth less since you proudly refuse to read the cases its not trolling amigo.
Please don't flatter yourself.

 

I would assume that in the event of a ban, the existing ones would be grandfathered in because of that whole ex post facto thing.

Anyway, I have lots of shirts with little whales on them. If the government banned VV clothes, I would just buy shirts with little something else's on them. I wouldn't get worked up about it. I am glad you and others have found an issue you are very passionate about. I just don't share your zeal. I am not a Gun Greta. I also don't share the passions of your opponents. I was simple pointing out to the OP that there are some of us who are not all or nothing on the issue. No more, no less.

 

Until it does:
"All bearable arms. No."
-USSC

 

If American pro gunners, pro 2nd Amdenders, have a good background etc.. why do they fear background checks etc..? I reckon it's because they would fail the criteria to be sensible with a shotgun and/or firearm.

An AR-15 in it's current form could be banned, but, if it's adapted to meet regulations, then it's suitable.

Handguns under a certain length were banned in the UK due to Dunblane, but, there was nothing stopping anyone to get their handgun altered to meet the new regs, just by a longer barrel or longer stock, or a bit of both.

 

Mindless nonsense.

Not without violating the US constitution.

 

I assume the opposition to background checks largely revolves around when it applies. For instance if my neighbor wants to sell me a generic gun, should we really have to go through a background check? I mean I personally wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it is free and readily available to everybody other than people would sit there keying in everybody they know looking at their criminal history. I mean I don't have one, but I know people who do who are sensitive about who knows their business.

Anyway, as I said, I don't think any of it really works from the gun control side beyond what we already do if someone is intent on getting a firearm, but if it creates the illusion we have done something meaningful, ban the AR15 for all I really care. Our real problem is on the mental health side and that is a nightmare with at least two generations already on so many drugs--legal or otherwise--reduced mental health capacity, overly generous rights for the mentally ill, etc. This is not a problem that will go away in any of our lifetimes.

 

well first they don't. If you buy a gun from an FFL (Federal firearms licensed dealer) you do a background check.

Next they aren't really designed to determine who is lawful to own a gun it's so the federal government can collect data.

That's not the criteria.

It already does meet regulations.

This is moronic to me. Regulating the people that are less of a threat than your police is fiddling while Rome burns. Nothing stops a potential criminal from buying one and just cutting the barrel down. So it does absolutely nothing to deter criminal behavior.

 

Rhode Island did no such thing. they made it a felony to continue to possess normal capacity magazines that had been legally bought and legally owned. Hopefully the federal courts perform a colonoscopy on the Rhode Island Legislature and clean up this crap

 

not if you actually understand the current case law.

 

That would go against current concealed carry law.

I don't know about "centuries ago", but I believe that IF anti-gun folk were given their dream of banning "assault weapons", never mind that they have no clue what that is, it would not save one life. Because, without missing a beat the lunatics committing the mass murders that banning "assault weapons", whatever they are, would supposedly stop would just go on to whatever else is left on the shelves and cause just as much mayhem. Howard Unruh, the first mass murderer, killed 13 people with an old Luger pistol, Charles Whitman, the 2nd mass murderer of note, killed 14 people with two bolt action hunting rifles. What would happen when banning "assault rifles" proved in effective is, emboldened by that success, gun banners would move on to the next and the next ... and the next until the 2nd Amendment was meaningless and Americans were defenseless against criminals and tyranny.

Australia.

Horse carts, bicycles and trucks are not protected by the Constitution. But they ARE well regulated by laws backed up by scientific research and, remain on our highways.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Well look. You made an opening post with a bunch of different claims and questions.

If I don't quote each claim or question above my reply, it will not be very clear which reply belongs to which point or question.

It really isn't that hard to separate "a quote of your post" from "the reply to that quote".

 

They want a ban.

That isn't true. The UK police can deny said application without any reason if they so choose.

Free people don't have to come up with a reason why before they are allowed to exercise their rights.

And what if someone wants a semi-auto rifle? Those are banned outright.

I actually find it a source of amusement that the UK government would consider me as having a valid reason to own a lever-action .30-30 if I lived under their jurisdiction.

But that does not make it OK to deny such guns to people who are not able to provide a valid reason.