U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-06-2019, 06:53 PM
 
5,756 posts, read 1,554,971 times
Reputation: 3553

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
There never was. It was symbolic and that's it. Everyone still bought them from 1994 - 2004.

Any new "ban" will be exactly the same. There is one in CA right now and I just bought another one. A Federal ban will be no different. Everyone screaming for a ban are just wasting time.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...metic_features
People don't really care about facts. The people who want to control others will use emotion every time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2019, 06:54 PM
 
4,824 posts, read 1,271,546 times
Reputation: 2256
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
Sounds like the only recourse is to repeal 2A.
There is a process, get on with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2019, 07:00 PM
 
39,711 posts, read 41,077,500 times
Reputation: 16431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
If they really added some teeth to the ban it would not be meaningless.

The only teeth teeth that be added is outright ban of any semi-auto rifle and confiscation of existing ones. That of course will never get by SCOTUS and even if it did would leave the remainder of them in the hands of criminals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2019, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
7,178 posts, read 7,852,058 times
Reputation: 5805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
Bragging about ignoring the law really takes away from the contradicting talking point that "law abiding gun owners" are not the problem.

It sounds to me like you should title your thread "Once again, there is no such thing as a law abiding gun owner".

(I know that's not true. I own guns, and as it pertains to gun ownership laws, I am confident that I abide by the letter AND THE INTENT of the law.)
Nobody ignored the law. The law was written in such a way that it was simple to work within it and remain law abiding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2019, 07:25 PM
 
Location: USA
18,579 posts, read 9,128,113 times
Reputation: 13961
The only reason I bought my first AR-15 was due to the "Assault Weapons Ban". I never wanted one before. The only difference was it didn't have a flash suppressor on the end. It was replaced with a "muzzle brake". I then realized it was accurate, modular, good for target shooting and hunting. Low recoil, that shot a small "varmint" round similar to my .22 with more powder behind it.

It is no different from several of my other rifles, and in effective fire power actually less so. My larger caliber lever action and bolt action rifles are much more devastating. The puny little .223/5.56mm was designed for ground hogs, small game, and Coyotes. Yes, it kills humans, but so can every other rifle, shotgun, handgun, knife, car, pool, bathtub, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2019, 10:28 PM
 
Location: San Diego
35,698 posts, read 32,461,018 times
Reputation: 20108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
The only reason I bought my first AR-15 was due to the "Assault Weapons Ban". I never wanted one before. The only difference was it didn't have a flash suppressor on the end. It was replaced with a "muzzle brake". I then realized it was accurate, modular, good for target shooting and hunting. Low recoil, that shot a small "varmint" round similar to my .22 with more powder behind it.

It is no different from several of my other rifles, and in effective fire power actually less so. My larger caliber lever action and bolt action rifles are much more devastating. The puny little .223/5.56mm was designed for ground hogs, small game, and Coyotes. Yes, it kills humans, but so can every other rifle, shotgun, handgun, knife, car, pool, bathtub, etc.
Funny you say that. I never wanted one either. Right until the libs said they wanted to ban them. Now or never so I bought one. I wasn't disappointed. It was more accurate than my 740 by far and didn't jam. Then they started making uppers in all calibers under the sun and wow, perfect one gun solution for hunting every critter you can think of.



Thanks libs. Who knew.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2019, 12:37 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
67,099 posts, read 34,147,833 times
Reputation: 14432
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
Sounds like the only recourse is to repeal 2A.
That would be an infringement of endowed rights.
The founders put a catch 22 by the last line of the amendment and the ONLY amendment, even trying to alter or eliminate it, would be unconstitutional.
Shall not be infringed, is very powerful language.


Now, that did not stop past legislation inserted into the amendment, without the amendment process.
Age requirements, government approval, cannot bear, non-felons and mentally sane only. All inserted to the 2nd, without amending it. Because they cannot amend it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2019, 07:32 AM
 
Location: San Diego
35,698 posts, read 32,461,018 times
Reputation: 20108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
Bragging about ignoring the law really takes away from the contradicting talking point that "law abiding gun owners" are not the problem.

It sounds to me like you should title your thread "Once again, there is no such thing as a law abiding gun owner".

(I know that's not true. I own guns, and as it pertains to gun ownership laws, I am confident that I abide by the letter AND THE INTENT of the law.)
We know what the intent of the law was. To disarm the public. Evidently you went against the intent too if you had a handgun, repeating rifle or shotgun. That's how wide the scope was of that stupid law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2019, 07:43 AM
 
Location: Long Island, N.Y.
1,514 posts, read 358,737 times
Reputation: 1166
There's no such thing as an "assault weapon"!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 10:08 AM
 
Location: San Diego
5,305 posts, read 1,455,578 times
Reputation: 3795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor217 View Post
Crazy people can do less damage if they couldnít get their hands on a gun...absolutely no way it creates more violence. Violence of some sort will always exist but it doesnít mean you canít reduce it.
TRANSLATION: If we ban all guns owned by law-abiding people who never broke any law with or about them, and forcibly confiscate them when their rightful owner doesn't want to cooperate, until there are no guns left, THEN crazy people will do less damage.

The end justifies the means. Let's do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top