"Virginia Democrats won an election. Gun owners are talking civil war"

And when the people decide not to hand over their guns, which are now illegal... then what?

Oh well? Pack it up and go home?

Something tells me that the Democrat leadership would not allow people to keep their 30 round magazines, and if they dont... how else are they supposed to get them?

 

I see - you don't expect the ban on possession of 'assault weapons' to be enforced.
So much for its necessity, eh?

I accept your concession.
When you can provide a rational basis for your claim that the only designed purpose of an assault weapons is to kill as many as possible, let us know.
Until then - you cannot see how a ban is unnecessary because you choose not to.

 

Current laws are weak, largely compromised to appease gun manufacturers (NRA), anyone who wants a gun can get a gun, you can even get one on the legitimate web by agreeing to "I consent" (https://www.armslist.com/), at least in Virginia they are attempting to address the issue

 

... by enacting unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.

 

You didn't answer either of the questions. Your example doesn't pertain to either one of the questions. It is illegal to sell a firearm through the internet without following state and federal laws.

1. I will not use Armslist.com for any illegal purpose.
2. If I am at all unsure about firearm sales or transfers, I will contact the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive at 1-800-ATF-GUNS and visit the ATF website at http://www.atf.gov.

Now, again:
1. Do you realize how many laws someone would have to break to sell guns in your fantasy scenario? Either laws work or they don't. Since it's already illegal would passing more laws to prevent that scenario make it twice as illegal?

2. If you are proposing taking more than 393 million guns away from law abiding citizens please explain how that would work.

 

Forget the "rights" rhetoric, as even Scalia agreed in Holder, no Constitutional right is absolute, that all can and in fact are regulated, and I'd say thirty thousand plus deaths a year and counting makes such measures necessary

 

You avoided the point. Don't do that.
How does the enactment of unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding address ANY issue?

 

For every gun used to commit a murder yesterday, >15,000,000 were not.
So much for your "necessity".

 

Exactly, as I noted, mark "I consent" where indicated, and you are on your own, and that is just one site on the above board web. And one doesn't even have to go that far, when an individual on a terrorist watch list who can't board an airplane can walk into a gun shop and purchase a weapon legally it tells you the current laws are weak

And the "taking guns," the whole gun manufactures', NRA, scare campaign about someone confiscating guns is bullshit, everytime Obama ran they perpetuated the myth Obama was coming after your guns, did Obama ever confiscate anyone's gun? But gun sales increased

 

The VA AW ban would make it illegal to possess an 'assault weapon'.
If no one will enforce this - that is, confiscate the guns - how will it be effective?
If it will not be enforced, how was it necessary?

 

Ah, could you show us the causation variable that makes that statement valid? No, it is an inane claim

But I'll better it, gun advocates keep telling us more guns make us safer, right now the US has more guns in circulation than any other developed nation, so we should be the safest developed nation in the world, however, we also have more gun deaths than any other developed nation in the world, which negates the more guns arguement

 

The only thing that keeps any anti gun folks from confiscating guns is the constitution. Everything that you propose is unconstitutional. Obama is not a friend of the 2nd Amendment. The very fact that this thread exists proves that you are anti Constitution. The law enforcement issues in Chicago, or any other liberally ran city, aren't of my making and aren't my concern. Those problems are a liberal policy creation. I could care less. You still haven't answered my question. How are you going to constitutionally enforce an "assault weapon" ban?

 

I'm sorry you don;t like the fact so many guns are NOT used to murder other people, but a fact it remains.

When 99.99758% of the guns in the US are NOT used to commit murder (10235/423,000,000) you have no hope of soundly demonstrating the "necessity" of further restrictions on the rights of the law abiding to a rational, reasoned person.

You offer this red herring because you know there is no rational basis for your argument.

 

And 360,000 were killed by drowning.

Sounds like water was designed to kill a lot better than firearms.

 

I am sure it is illegal in Virgina right now to posses recreational weed, is anyone running around targeting people to bust for smoking dope?

You start a voluntary turn back policy, and just like drugs, when police come across illegal weapons in the course of thier duty they confiscate them and charge the owner with a criminal charge. And I do believe private sales was already covered in the legislation

 

The only thing that keeps anti-gun folks from confiscating guns is their personal fear of death.

 

Yeah just like drugs, if you make them illegal, you can't get them anymore.

 

You offer this red herring because you know you cannot soundly address my questions.
I'll ask again:
If no one will enforce this - that is, confiscate the guns - how will it be effective?
If it will not be enforced, how was it necessary?

Ah - so the 'ban ' will do nothing to take 'assault weapons' off the streets, until -after- someone uses one -- just like now.
In other words, it will do nothing more to reduce availability of existing guns, and thus, nothing to reduce their use in mass shootings than the laws currently in place.
Thus, the ban is both unnecessary and ineffective.

 

As I said inane, the overwhelming number of vehicles in the US are not involved in accidents, so does that mean we shouldn't do anything regarding vehicle and traffic safety? Same logic you are using

And it is no more of a "red herring" than your assumption

Plus you are coming from a weak position that suddenly someone is going to confiscate all guns because of gun regulation, NRA myth, nothing could be further from the truth, most gun reform is aimed at acess, not confiscation

 

Nonsense, the NRA gives about one tenth to politicians what Planned Parenthood does, they're weak because of the will of the people, as we see in VA.

 

You sure have a knack for offering red herrings when you cannot address the point put to you - did they teach you ti in "fellow traveler" school?

When 99.99758% of the guns in the US are NOT used to commit murder (10235/423,000,000) you have no hope of soundly demonstrating the "necessity" of further restrictions on the rights of the law abiding to a rational, reasoned person.

Disagree? Demonstrate the necessaity you claim.

Straw-man - I haven't mention this at all.

 

Are you wanting to ban certain types of cars? Cars aren't protected by the Constitution

 

Don't follow the red herring.

 

Again with the confiscation, no one is going to confiscate your guns, it is a gun manufacturers', NRA, myth to sell more guns, rather, the laws will be enforced just like any law is enforced and I fully explained above

Access is the target, if access to assault weapons is strictly restricted eventually with less market they won't be mass produced as they are today and numbers will decrease. In the meantime, enforce the new law just as we do any law and attrition will take over

 

No one said anything about banning cars, duh, but now that you went there, I see no problem in treating guns as we do cars, competence tests, time dated registration, liability insurance, etc., etc.

And before you go there, just know you will given your first response, no, the right to drive isn't in the Constitution, but as I noted earlier, and Scalia himself admitted in Holder, no Constitutional right is absolute, none, they all can and are regulated