Assault Gun Question

[EJSG19]

In short, giving ground to the emotional, irrational, not bothered with facts crowd is a slippery slope best not tried.

[20mm]

Instead of banning assualt weapons, why don't they just ban large magazines? Then the mfgr's could sell the rifle with smaller magazines.

I never hear anyone bringing that up.

I've never heard anyone bring up banning stupid and evil people either.

[Heffay]

What about options that don't make it any more difficult to own a weapon? Not every option is AWB.

[Lunchbox]

It gets better. Not only is there assault guns (yes heffay, I understand what you're saying about common use terms) but there is "assault magazines". Thanks nancy pelosi.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/pelos ... -outlawed/

Article and video.

[Heffay]

They are doing a great job of establishing a starting point for the upcoming negotiations. This is the perfect time to send nobody to the table, so they can put everything they want into the bill.

Nice. We're going to "shall not be infringed" our way right back to an AWB.

[TTS]

They are doing a great job of establishing a starting point for the upcoming negotiations. This is the perfect time to send nobody to the table, so they can put everything they want into the bill.

Nice. We're going to "shall not be infringed" our way right back to an AWB.

If they wanted to ban Islam or Christianity, what would you compromise? Would you give them the Mormons but not the Lutherans?

[Heffay]

They are doing a great job of establishing a starting point for the upcoming negotiations. This is the perfect time to send nobody to the table, so they can put everything they want into the bill.

Nice. We're going to "shall not be infringed" our way right back to an AWB.

If they wanted to ban Islam or Christianity, what would you compromise? Would you give them the Mormons but not the Lutherans?

No. I would offer things that deal with the actual "problem" (whatever it may be), instead of cosmetic changes that won't do any good.

[TTS]

They are doing a great job of establishing a starting point for the upcoming negotiations. This is the perfect time to send nobody to the table, so they can put everything they want into the bill.

Nice. We're going to "shall not be infringed" our way right back to an AWB.

If they wanted to ban Islam or Christianity, what would you compromise? Would you give them the Mormons but not the Lutherans?

No. I would offer things that deal with the actual "problem" (whatever it may be), instead of cosmetic changes that won't do any good.

I agree, but they don't want real change, they want to ban guns... When you see the proposal they offer, I think you will agree.

The first problem is, the administration is starting from the premise that the problem lies with the gun. If you start with an invalid premise you can not reach a solution that works.

[One Man Wolf Pack]

They are doing a great job of establishing a starting point for the upcoming negotiations. This is the perfect time to send nobody to the table, so they can put everything they want into the bill.

Nice. We're going to "shall not be infringed" our way right back to an AWB.

Mind giving us a timeframe on that? Won't pass the house any time soon. Only thing we really need fear is an executive order and the interim time it takes to get it thrown out in the courts.

[solidgun]

If you make enough inconveniences and weed out new owners, you don't have to fight a war to win....you just have to wait for enough owners to go away so there is less voice to squash.

I have been talking to people that are clueless about guns and this one lady was worried about the carry laws expanding in Michigan....saying that wouldn't it be dangerous for teachers to have guns because they can go off by accident. You are dealing with unwilling to learn and ignorant people out there. Lowering the round count down to zero is not too unrealistic for them and that is the reason why limiting the standard capacity to any point is not a move that should be acceptable.

[Heffay]

I agree, but they don't want real change, they want to ban guns... When you see the proposal they offer, I think you will agree.

The first problem is, the administration is starting from the premise that the problem lies with the gun. If you start with an invalid premise you can not reach a solution that works.

They don't get everything they want. Of course, if noone offers up anything to counter, you're basically hoping the political policies of the last election were just a fluke, and that this time everything will be ok.

They don't want an AWB, because they want their jobs in 2014. Offer an alternative so that everyone can declare victory, and nothing really changes.

[Snowgun]

I agree, but they don't want real change, they want to ban guns... When you see the proposal they offer, I think you will agree.

The first problem is, the administration is starting from the premise that the problem lies with the gun. If you start with an invalid premise you can not reach a solution that works.

They don't get everything they want. Of course, if noone offers up anything to counter, you're basically hoping the political policies of the last election were just a fluke, and that this time everything will be ok.

They don't want an AWB, because they want their jobs in 2014. Offer an alternative so that everyone can declare victory, and nothing really changes.

When autism spectrum disorder is outlawed, only outlaws will have ASD.


I believe re-framing the debate to mental health is the only way to deflect this, as Heffay has mentioned.

[GunClasses.Net]

Better that than making the rifle itself Illegal.

Sort of like if they were to limit how large a gas tank could be on a car? I get what you're saying. Please allow me to play devil's advocate...

As I assume you would agree, a mag capacity limit means you change mags more often; a brief inconvenience to a bad guy mowing down a crowd... a fatal window of lost time for a defender being shot at?

If a bad guy comes up one bullet short, that's not the same as if you are attacked by a group of thugs and YOU come up one bullet short. One's a missed opportunity; one's a tragedy.

If a bad guy wants to have more rounds ready, he carries more mags; big deal, as he's only going to do that once to do the deed. If a permit holder wants to have more rounds ready, he carries more mags - every day he carries. What a pain in the ... I'd rather not have to figure out how to do that.

Back to the car analogy... It would be like having a 2 gallon gas tank in my car. My likelihood of stalling on the road is higher. I have to stop for gas every 50 miles. Man...

But yes, if it's a choice between giving up the gun or the 30 rd mag, ok fine I concede giving up the mag is better. So I have a preference. But, let's be honest... if we give in to that, we're complying with the powers that be which push us one step closer to the edge of the cliff, one step at a time. So, while I have a preference, I also have a principle.

Sent from my Tardis using Tapatalk HD

[Heffay]

But, let's be honest... if we give in to that, we're complying with the powers that be which push us one step closer to the edge of the cliff, one step at a time. So, while I have a preference, I also have a principle.

You're principles are based on a failed premise: That you aren't subject to the whims of society, and you can say "no" to get the results you want.

[sansooshooter]

But, let's be honest... if we give in to that, we're complying with the powers that be which push us one step closer to the edge of the cliff, one step at a time. So, while I have a preference, I also have a principle.

You're principles are based on a failed premise: That you aren't subject to the whims of society, and you can say "no" to get the results you want.

Sometimes you should not comply with the powers that be.
We have gotten to many bad places one small polotical step at a time.