Gun control debate (merged)

#8,126
#8,126
luthervol said:
Maybe you should consider doing just that. I certainly water down the things I think of saying to you, but you do serve well as being the poster boy for redhatters.
Click to expand...
Better a red hatter than a fascist. YOU are a fascist. You will be one of the first to die in the war you want to create.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, davethevol, 82_VOL_83 and 1 other person
#8,130
#8,130
luthervol said:
lol.....No one is attempting to take away anyone's rights. That is 100% right wing propaganda scare tactics.
Click to expand...

Disclaimer-I type this knowing full well addressing Looth regarding firearms is pretty much a waste of time. This is just a general observation that's predicated on a post that happened to be his.

When the stated (wholly unambiguous) goal is to render the most popular rifle type in the country illegal to the point of surrender of face prosecution the distinction asserted here rings empty. This is the enormous difference between what is being proposed here vs the bump stock issue. (there's problems with that as well but they're more technical) This isn't some niche device that, from the very beginning, was dancing on the razor's edge of legal compliance. The discussion now has transferred to the outright criminalization of an entire weapons platform, on sale for civilian usage, for over 50 years. At this point in time it is, and in fact has for some time now, been literally (no really, literally) the most popular rifle platform in America. Why? Because across the board it's the best tool for the job. Not necessarily the best for any given job but easily...easily...the best for a "If you could only have just one rifle for everything." scenario. The caliber availability (remember this would include the AR-10 platform as well) is enormous and is a chameleon of modular diversity. You can change from a heavy caliber red dot carbine to a rifle length precision rig in a snap. Due to this popularity it falls squarely under exactly what the 2A is intended to protect and passes, smiling and waving as it goes by, the criteria set forth in Heller for a weapon type "in common use for lawful purposes".

The other elephant in the room is this hilarious idea that those proposing such things really want to stop there. The absolutely correct assumption is that most of them are outright lying. Those that aren't are just dupes helping set the long term precedent. The whole idea of "We're changing the law for just this one thing." is just a big case of

ScreenHunter_3226 Apr. 18 10.55.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, NurseGoodVol, nuclearjunky and 1 other person
#8,134
#8,134
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321, 615vols, joevol33 and 5 others
#8,135
#8,135
Didn't figure it would be long.

NRA sues Los Angeles over law requiring disclosure of ties to gun group

The National Rifle Association sued Los Angeles on Wednesday over a new law requiring that contractors disclose their ties to the gun rights group as a condition of obtaining business from the second most-populous U.S. city.

Los Angeles was accused of trying to "silence NRA's voice, as well as the voices of all those who dare oppose the city's broad gun-control agenda," by cutting off revenue streams the group needs to advocate for the right to bear arms.

The lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court challenged an ordinance that took effect on April 1, requiring companies that want city contracts to disclose NRA contracts or sponsorships.

According to the NRA, the law is unconstitutional because it violates its First Amendment right to free speech and association, and its 14th Amendment right to equal protection.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#8,142
#8,142
hog88 said:
I don't see how they don't win this case. The ban is completely unconstitutional IMO.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Simply changing a regulation to make something illegal, without even the cover of enacting legislation and signing a new law into place, is really sketchy even on it's face. There was no offer of grandfathering current devices nor even the option of registering said devices to comply with the new NFA classification. I'm hoping this is just the first step. I'd like to see a class action suit that covers everyone who had such a device to be compensated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and hog88
#8,144
#8,144
tennvols77 said:
Keep giving these "candidates" more time on the microphone please. Don't ask a question, just let them talk and keep talking, the R's couldn't put a price on the free campaigning they are receiving.
Click to expand...

WTH is she even talking about?

"During a town hall hosted by CNN, Harris said that if a bill from Congress did not make it to her desk, she would unilaterally mandate background checks for customers purchasing a firearm from any dealer who sells more than five guns a year. Dealers who violate the law, she said, would have their licenses revoked."

There is nobody with an FFL license that isn't already required to do a BGC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, LouderVol, hog88 and 1 other person
#8,145
#8,145
hndog609 said:
WTH is she even talking about?

"During a town hall hosted by CNN, Harris said that if a bill from Congress did not make it to her desk, she would unilaterally mandate background checks for customers purchasing a firearm from any dealer who sells more than five guns a year. Dealers who violate the law, she said, would have their licenses revoked."

There is nobody with an FFL license that isn't already required to do a BGC.
Click to expand...
The ignorance abides.......
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#8,147
#8,147
lawgator1 said:
Assuming that whatever technical obstacle they are claiming actually exists, and assuming it could be overcome, what's wrong with technology that matches a bullet to a gun?

I would think that responsible gun owners would be all for it.
Click to expand...
Responsible gun owners don't point their guns at things they don't intend to destroy. It's one of the four rules. I'll let you learn about the rest on the NRA website.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#8,148
#8,148
azVolFan said:
Responsible gun owners don't point their guns at things they don't intend to destroy. It's one of the four rules. I'll let you learn about the rest on the NRA website.
Click to expand...


Ok.

What does that have to do with the value of matching bullets to guns?
 
#8,150
#8,150
lawgator1 said:
Ok.

What does that have to do with the value of matching bullets to guns?
Click to expand...

Most guns do have a preference regarding certain bullets and accuracy. Some of it is borderline voodoo but a good place to start is don't expect heavy for caliber bullets to be stabilized in slower twist barrels.

OK, I realize that wasn't what you meant but it's more practically useful than what you're positing. And wasn't this hashed out way, way back over 300 pages ago?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top