are so called assault weapons more deadly

[ttwtt78640]

Right but with larger supply, the price decreases and then a bigger pool of crazies can so arm themselves.

Hmm... so you wish to restrict guns to the richer (more successful?) criminals and, of course, the government.

 

[TurtleDude]

Hmm... so you wish to restrict guns to the richer (more successful?) criminals and, of course, the government.

gun control-when you strip away the BS-has always been about class control

 

[Shooterman35]

well in some cases-if you are an abortion provider, a gay rights activist, a union leader, a criminal or a plaintiff's attorney, it was sensible for you to vote for Obama if those issues are the most important to you

Damme, but I knew there was a reason I did not vote for Obambam.

 

[Crimefree]

Right but with larger supply, the price decreases and then a bigger pool of crazies can so arm themselves.

Which part of you cannot stop criminals and the determined getting what they want do you not understand?

Increasing the price or availability simply means making it profitable for criminals to supply.

Has the supply of drugs no influence on your thinking?

 

[countryboy]

Did anyone ever actually answer the question asked in the OP? The answer is of course, no.

 

[Absentglare]

Those nations and states with registries have not found them to be so effective as you purport... note that Canada ended their long-gun registry, partly due to widespread noncompliance.

California has registration, and this is where the mass shooting happened. Chicago has registration... well just look. Cali is using its registry to disarm people left and right at the slightest excuse.

And frankly I do not believe you'd cease from calling for AR15's and such to be illegal if you got registration. When I say "You" I mean you and your fellow gun control advocates. History says every new gun control act just leads to yet another... leaving us on this side with little reason to compromise.

Canada has had registration for more than 80 years. They still have registration. They are happy with registration, just like virtually every developed nation other than the US. They also issue licenses for their firearms owners.

California's registration will continue to be unenforceable so long as its neighbors ignore the problem of gun violence and it refuses to strip search at every border.

California is not disarming people left and right. That's a false claim used to scare gun rights activists.

Your assumption that registration will somehow lead to other gun laws is simply unfounded. Nowhere in history, so far as i'm aware, has congress been able to pass a bill without anything resembling a vote. The idea that "you might keep trying to pass more controls so i won't compromise," is an immature attitude toward a serious policy discussion.

 

[Absentglare]

another really stupid comment.


they are popular because

1) they have tons of accessories

2) because they have a military background-ammunition is much cheaper. Try comparing 222 ammo with 223

3) they are lightweight, accurate, easily maintained and since many gunsmiths know how to work on them , easy to get serviced.

4) since lots of vets tend to like shooting, its understandable they buy a rifle they trained with in the military. which was why so many WWII vets bought Garands and MI carbines just as WWI vets bought bolt action rifles

5) people think they're cool

 

[Absentglare]

Define "crazies".

Mass murderers who go on shooting sprees.

 

[TurtleDude]

5) people think they're cool

and owning them causes garment soiling and bed wetting by lots of idiots on the left

 

[Absentglare]

You want to register weapons in this country? Take all the dishonest pieces of **** that want to confiscate them and force them to admit that keeping and bearing arms is a human right.

As long as there's a single oathbreaking piece of **** in Congress who wants to confiscate our guns, registration is not on the table.

Name one congressperson who calls for the confiscation of every gun in America.

 

[TurtleDude]

Mass murderers who go on shooting sprees.

in other words, people who are not deterred by the threat of a capital murder sentence or the thought of being prosecuted for having a banned firearm

 

[Absentglare]

Which part of you cannot stop criminals and the determined getting what they want do you not understand?

Increasing the price or availability simply means making it profitable for criminals to supply.

Has the supply of drugs no influence on your thinking?

The easier you make a crime to commit, the more likely that crime will be committed.

 

[Absentglare]

in other words, people who are not deterred by the threat of a capital murder sentence or the thought of being prosecuted for having a banned firearm

Making guns cheaper and easier to acquire has the necessary result of giving these crazies access to greater destructive power off-the-shelf.

 

[TurtleDude]

Name one congressperson who calls for the confiscation of every gun in America.

that's a dishonest question. If someone like FeinSwine has called for the confiscation of lots of firearms-its fair to assume that she wants to ultimately confiscate most of them

and its just as disgusting

why should any firearm that has been legally bought and not misused be subject to confiscation? why should anyone lose property they own because some other scumbag doesn't something illegal with the same sort of property?

 

[TurtleDude]

Making guns cheaper and easier to acquire has the necessary result of giving these crazies access to greater destructive power off-the-shelf.

making guns more expensive and harder to acquire has the effect of harassing millions of honest people in the pipe dream it might stop a few crazies. Sorry, in a free society that is improper

 

[Absentglare]

that's a dishonest question. If someone like FeinSwine has called for the confiscation of lots of firearms-its fair to assume that she wants to ultimately confiscate most of them

and its just as disgusting

why should any firearm that has been legally bought and not misused be subject to confiscation? why should anyone lose property they own because some other scumbag doesn't something illegal with the same sort of property?

Strawman.

The claim is that registration should not be considered until there is no confiscationist (?) left in congress. I don't know of a single one, so i'm asking for one name. Do you think that's really so unreasonable ?

 

[TurtleDude]

The easier you make a crime to commit, the more likely that crime will be committed.

the more you disarm innocent people the more likely it is they will be the victims of violent criminals or a despotic government

 

[TurtleDude]

Strawman.

The claim is that registration should not be considered until there is no confiscationist (?) left in congress. I don't know of a single one, so i'm asking for one name. Do you think that's really so unreasonable ?

registration should be met with armed resistance

it has no purpose other than to pave the way to confiscation as has been proven already in several US states. why do the banoids support a law that cannot even be imposed on criminals if their goal is not to harass honest gun owners?

 

[Absentglare]

making guns more expensive and harder to acquire has the effect of harassing millions of honest people in the pipe dream it might stop a few crazies. Sorry, in a free society that is improper

You don't have the right to purchase cheap firearms. Do you think the US govt should spend billions of dollars subsidizing the cost of an AR-15 so that the poor folks can afford more guns? I don't. I certainly wouldn't consider that much of a worthwhile service. And i don't feel like i owe anyone a cheap gun with my tax dollars.

Frankly, we can attach taxes to pay for the costs associated with widespread gun ownership.

 

[Absentglare]

registration should be met with armed resistance

it has no purpose other than to pave the way to confiscation as has been proven already in several US states. why do the banoids support a law that cannot even be imposed on criminals if their goal is not to harass honest gun owners?

Name one state where registration led to confiscation.

 

[TurtleDude]

Name one state where registration led to confiscation.

California
NJ
NY

 

[TurtleDude]

You don't have the right to purchase cheap firearms. Do you think the US govt should spend billions of dollars subsidizing the cost of an AR-15 so that the poor folks can afford more guns? I don't. I certainly wouldn't consider that much of a worthwhile service. And i don't feel like i owe anyone a cheap gun with my tax dollars.

Frankly, we can attach taxes to pay for the costs associated with widespread gun ownership.

what sort of mindless idiocy is that. why do you left wing gun banners hate the poor?

 

[Beaudreaux]

California
NJ
NY

You didn't answer his question. He said one, you listed three.

 

[Goshin]

Canada has had registration for more than 80 years. They still have registration. They are happy with registration, just like virtually every developed nation other than the US. They also issue licenses for their firearms owners.

California's registration will continue to be unenforceable so long as its neighbors ignore the problem of gun violence and it refuses to strip search at every border.

California is not disarming people left and right. That's a false claim used to scare gun rights activists.

Your assumption that registration will somehow lead to other gun laws is simply unfounded. Nowhere in history, so far as i'm aware, has congress been able to pass a bill without anything resembling a vote. The idea that "you might keep trying to pass more controls so i won't compromise," is an immature attitude toward a serious policy discussion.

I'm sorry you feel that way. It is a position I arrived at, not in an immature fit of emotion, but after long and considered reflection over half a lifetime.


I have, at various points, considered gun control proposals on their merits, and considered whether they might enhance security without being overly burdensome to the lawful gun owner. In most cases, the benefit to public safety was highly questionable, and the burden upon the lawful typically heavier than the burden upon the violent felon.


Even so, there was a time when I was more willing to compromise.


That was before I realized that the core of the gun control movement has, as their objective, making it as close to impossible for the average American to own a gun, let alone carry a gun, as was the case in DC and Chicago until recently. From time to time, core gun control proponents let things slip... making clear their were pursuing a policy of incrementalism, where every step was to be followed by the next. Indeed, the history of gun control in America in the 20th century reads like an incrementalist script, until The People began to push back in the 1990s.


So absent a VERY compelling reason to do so, my default position on new gun control will remain No.

"Give us this and we'll leave your AR's alone" isn't sufficient reason... for one thing, I've heard it's like before more than once, and it turned out to be a lie every time. I'll give YOU personally the benefit of the doubt and assume your are sincere, but your faction as a whole will never settle for "that's good enough" until all America is as bad as Chicago and DC.


So, No, thank you.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm sorry you feel that way. It is a position I arrived at, not in an immature fit of emotion, but after long and considered reflection over half a lifetime.


I have, at various points, considered gun control proposals on their merits, and considered whether they might enhance security without being overly burdensome to the lawful gun owner. In most cases, the benefit to public safety was highly questionable, and the burden upon the lawful typically heavier than the burden upon the violent felon.


Even so, there was a time when I was more willing to compromise.


That was before I realized that the core of the gun control movement has, as their objective, making it as close to impossible for the average American to own a gun, let alone carry a gun, as was the case in DC and Chicago until recently. From time to time, core gun control proponents let things slip... making clear their were pursuing a policy of incrementalism, where every step was to be followed by the next. Indeed, the history of gun control in America in the 20th century reads like an incrementalist script, until The People began to push back in the 1990s.


So absent a VERY compelling reason to do so, my default position on new gun control will remain No.

"Give us this and we'll leave your AR's alone" isn't sufficient reason... for one thing, I've heard it's like before more than once, and it turned out to be a lie every time. I'll give YOU personally the benefit of the doubt and assume your are sincere, but your faction as a whole will never settle for "that's good enough" until all America is as bad as Chicago and DC.


So, No, thank you.

the banoid argument is that we should accept registration because we cannot prove it ALWAYS leads to confiscation

that is proof the banoids don't have any argument WHY we should want an expensive crappy law imposed on us that cannot even be used against criminals