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.
You get the drift I'm sure. You not liking or being in agreement with them regardless, your denial has no weight in point of fact.
Understanding that your denial and your rigidity of stance regarding the inability to discuss this topic rationally with the anti crowd must change if some form of consensus is to be arrived at.
Otherwise - just as the vaunted 2nd amendment has already been modified from it's origins, so to will your ability to remain in denial. Either negotiate or lose the fight.
Yes it really is that simple.
The majority will eventually speak and when they do you won't like the outcome.
The public cannot tolerate forever the proliferation of firearms in conjunction with the proliferating numbers of criminals and mentally ill using them to commit these deeds. Surely you must realize they will speak loudly. You must either compromise or lose.
This is all I'm saying. Firearms are far too many and widespread in the U.S. for anyone to consider confiscation. There would be massive upheaval of the likes that would make the attack on the Capital Buildings pale in comparison to even suggest such a tactic. BUT, something has to be done and until the firearm crowd speaks to actually forcing compliance and upholding of those thousands of laws already on the books instead of demanding a total hands off - you'll continue to lose support from your own demographic.
We are done compromising. That's all we've been doing. We "compromised" with the stupid 94 ban and it wasn't the magic bullet your side told us it would be. We are not willingly going down that rabbit hole again. You cannot control what people do in their own bedrooms anymore than their garages. A private exchange back ground check is just idiotic. I'm not giving the govt 100 dollars to document an old firearm with no documentation I'm selling to a buddy of mine I know isn't a criminal. Your team's mental masturbation of symbolic laws that have no teeth is ridiculous. We can't even enforce the laws we already have.
Good lord. Most old weapons don't even have an individual serial number to document.
This is where we agree on something..... enforce the laws on the books. Stop with the incessant wailing about certain types of firearms that are no different than any other common firearm. Can the rhetoric about bans / restrictions on firearms already in common use. Address the root cause of the issue, which is NOT guns, but societal norms. Yes, it is much harder, but if you truly want change that is the only way.
The Fudd squad and its NRA has lost the argument; there will be more gun laws on the books, because they have recognized the existing laws on the books as legitimate.
This is where we agree on something..... enforce the laws on the books. Stop with the incessant wailing about certain types of firearms that are no different than any other common firearm. Can the rhetoric about bans / restrictions on firearms already in common use. Address the root cause of the issue, which is NOT guns, but societal norms. Yes, it is much harder, but if you truly want change that is the only way.
The Fudd squad and its NRA has lost the argument; there will be more gun laws on the books, because they have recognized the existing laws on the books as legitimate.
To change the tide you must first stop the tide...………… no new laws until what is there is enforced. Then the laws that are there can be changed.
Here is the issue. Many of pro firearms people rely on logic, not emotion to make their decisions, and they have experience actually shooting the weapons the politicians want to ban. That is why, we are adamant on some of the "descriptors" utilized to define the politicians and medias made up term of assault weapon.
For instance, nothing listed here (from your links) helps with the "lethality" of the firearm.
A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
A thumbhole stock.
A folding or telescoping stock.
A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
A flash suppressor.
A forward pistol grip.
These are like adding body cladding on a car, just add on's that do nothing. The verbiage does do something though, it will effectively turn grandpa's 70 year old Remington 7400 into a ban worthy "assault weapon".
An interesting thing is, "assault rifle" , is defined differently than the politician and media biased term of "assault weapon".
Also, these so called "assault weapons" are used in 17% of mass shootings. So why are they targeting a item that is rarely used , vs handguns ? Again, it isn't rational or logical.....seems political to me.
Exactly. Slapping on cosmetic plastic parts to a gun suddenly turn it into a dangerous "assault weapon?" Which is as silly as claiming a cool paint job with racing stripes, a two digit number on the front quarter panel, a plastic airdam in the front, a plastic spoiler, and glasspacks, according to the lunatic left, can transform a Honda Fit into a "race car."
To change the tide you must first stop the tide...………… no new laws until what is there is enforced. Then the laws that are there can be changed.
Many times people who are not allowed to buy a gun fail a background check, or lie on the form, and yet the FBI does not pursue them.
Funny how the left blames the GUN when there's a shooting involving citizens and blames the police officer when there's a
shooting during a police action.
Many times people who are not allowed to buy a gun fail a background check, or lie on the form, and yet the FBI does not pursue them.
I understand what you are getting at, but in the scope of the gun control argument what you just said is that the person failed the check and didn't get the gun. If they lie and get the gun then how do the authorities know to come after them. The issue here to me is not a gun control issue, it is falsifying a federal document and should be handled as such. It is already against the law so you don't need a new law, just strict enforcement of the existing law.
Funny how the left blames the GUN when there's a shooting involving citizens and blames the police officer when there's a
shooting during a police action.
Which is it?
It all depends on their agenda that day. They are agenda fluid...
Funny how the left blames the GUN when there's a shooting involving citizens and blames the police officer when there's a
shooting during a police action.
Which is it?
Here’s for your reading pleasure
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.
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.
