Every sane person knows that murder is illegal and punishable, that is the scare tactic. Yes, that may prevent people from committing murder. Not once have I ever advocated for getting rid of any murder laws. What you are advocating for is a bunch of sub laws that are all under the "murder is illegal" law. This is all a moral problem, not a gun, accessory, or law problem.
You don't want to have a real gun debate. That has been shown clearly. Especially when arguments like Well I should be able to buy a Battleship because of the 2nd amendment is thrown around. The left is always yelling we need "common sense" gun laws. How much more common sense is asking what is the purpose a law is being created for, and does the law being created accomplish that purpose. If it doesn't, it isn't a very common sense law. this proposed law is like trying to prevent car deaths by making it illegal to increase the compression in a cars engine so it can go faster. I don't care what the issue is, if a law gets proposed it needs to do what it is written to do. I have yet to see a rational reason behind the bump stock ban, that the ban would accomplish. It is a fear reaction and nothing more.
First I said Tank, F-14 and Apache Helo, I get sea sick, so I do not want a battleship. Can you give a rational reason to own a bump stock? Home protection? Better Intruder Protection? I do agree with you on the bump stock, it's pointless. All it is for so congress can say we did something, without doing anything.
Fun is not allowed in the USA anymore No, I have not shot fully automatic, I believe it would be fun.
That is another argument the left tries to use. "Why do you NEED such and such gun". but you never hear them ask why do you need to protest, why do you need to speak, why do you need to assemble.
That's your comeback? Seriously?! To top it off you play the "I can't think of anything intelligent" to say so I'll hit you in the manhood with the baby blankie routine. Yes tactics have changed, they upgraded their toys, I have to upgrade mine. Yes gov't could cripple us in days, just like they could have done to the same spot on the earth since Desert Storm circa what 1990. But that's not how it's done is it? It's boots on the ground going from house to house. Some of you will just have to accept Hillary and Bernie lost! I'm out, call me names behind my back. I feel like I lost IQ points.
So many poor assumptions and fallacious arguments here. I voted for Trump. I am quite conservative. I own guns. I see no reason to not consider the chance that children in schools and fans at concerts might live because of some restrictions on guns or who can own them. I am open minded enough to consider the possibilities without screaming to the heavens that our government will likely overthrow us if we don't have mass amounts of ammo and military grade weapons. Its irresponsible if not ignorant to not consider the possibilities. My apologies to those that obviously had a very emotional affinity for their blankie. It was only a metaphor. There was no intent to bring back tortured memories of having to nap while it was in the washer.
You are under the false assumption that we haven't considered them. You say might, I say what has been proposed won't make a difference. They are not proposing common sense legislation, they are only proposing scared reactive legislation. I ask what has changed that we are having these shootings? Its not the guns, weapons like these have been around my entire life of almost 50 years. We have far more restrictive gun laws currently then when I was young. So what really has changed because it is not guns. They have mostly stayed the same. The technology is basically the same. Why are people choosing to act in ways they didn't years ago. That is really the question nobody wants to try and tackle because it is a difficult. Talking about gun laws and restrictions is just a convenient way for Politicians to act like they care so people will vote them back into office. If we don't address the PEOPLE problem that is behind the violence and lack of respect for life, it doesn't matter what restrictions you put in place, the people who want to kill others will continue.
Like I said, "or who can own them." That's PEOPLE. Well, if you say it wont make a difference, I guess we will just have to go with that then. No false assumptions in that.
And I have yet to hear one actual proposal on how to limit WHO can own. I hear "keep guns from those mentally ill", but I haven't seen any proposals on how to do so. I don't think anybody has a problem with the Felon restriction. I've heard "Universal Background Checks" yet I don't believe any of the guns were purchased without a check. when somebody comes forward with a real common sense proposal, then we can have a common sense discussion. As of now all there has been is trying to scare people into supporting **** that won't fix anything. But hey it makes good campaign talk.
Sorry by stating what common sense gun law to you Remmit is a waste of time, your mind is set and that's fine. Common sense tells me this, I have a 10 shot clip for my hand gun, if I burn through 10 and I still got people coming at me, I have bigger problems that 30 or 40 round clip won't solve.
Common sense should tell you that if you go into some place shooting, people are not going to be coming at you, they are going to be diving for cover or running away. Common Sense says if people are still coming, use the 2nd or 3rd hand gun that also have 10 or however many rounds loaded. Everybody likes to believe that if making them have fewer rounds, or shoot slower they would result in fewer deaths. But in reality that isn't the case. For some reason when you give a person a gun with a larger magazine they don't aim as much, so while they may shoot more rounds in a given time, they do not necessarily get more hits. When somebody shooting knows they have fewer rounds they tend to make each round count more. Lets end with a little education.
We have SEVEN times the homicide rate by gun that Canada has. Can you explain to me how their gun laws have nothing to do with that please? Is everyone in that county "bending the knee"? Are they soon to be overthrown by a rebel insurrection? If that proves their very restrictive gun laws save lives, is it worth the encroachment on your right to bear arms?
You completely missed, but that's why it's not worth the time to discussed it you, and why your "purpose of the law" is complete BS.
We have almost 9 times as many people in our country too. 52% of homicide by gun in our country is committed by a group that makes up 15% of our population, which happens to be African Americans, and most of THAT is black on black murder. So firstly, that stat doesn't prove that restrictive gun laws save lives, and secondly, no, it's not worth it because no one knows what or when things could happen. Look at the other countries who are in a constant battle against their government against tyranny. Just because we live in a first world country doesn't make tyranny obsolete. EDIT: Is your stat including population? I'm not seeing that data anywhere. Either way, I edited my comment.
