Times when you hate to be right...

How?

Won't that just create a black market and increase gun smuggling? You don't think the cartels will jump all over that?

 

No steps that violate the constitution should be considered.

 

You're exactly right.
All of the incremental steps to banning private gun ownership will do is to create another violent black market & increase street crime.
Today, criminals are killing each other over drugs. If or when certain firearms are banned, they'll be killing people over drugs AND those firearms.

 

When the Colonies existed, America was not a free country and Citizens did not have rights. In order for the militia to be well regulated, which means properly functioning, the Citizens must be armed with arms suitable to be used in combat....

 

You don’t get to make claims here, have them proven wrong and then move on to new claims. Some people call it moving the goalposts I guess.

Doesn’t really bother me because I understand you have to or the narrative dies. The thing is, now you are demanding I prove something I never claimed. I only claimed that pre ban weapons were available during the federal ban and, by following logic they would be/are today. That is a fact. I’m dealing in reality, you are dealing what if’s based on bad data going into the assumptions.

If you want to change your tune you are going to have to prove shooters wouldn’t get a pre ban weapon now if the 1994 law had not sunset. That’s impossible to prove. And logic shows they certainly could.

There isn’t data available to prove or disprove mass shootings since the ban ended used pre ban weapons or not. If you can prove all were post ban I would be interested in your source. For many shootings the weapon isn’t even identified, let alone data given on date of completion when the serialized lower receiver was mated with an upper etc. to form a functional weapon. You can’t just go by serial number because that only tells you when the stripped lower was forged. If you can run down all that information I would love to see it.

 

52% of Americans over age 18 have tried cannabis.

 

Wouldn't you suspect that many more people have tried and / or use cannabis & just declined to admit to it?

At any rate, I hope most people realize by now that you cannot alter human behavior by attempting to manipulate inanimate objects or substances.

 

How so?

 

Well in dealing with the border if we focus on the actual problem that will help. See what gun legislation does is focus on something other than the problem because it follows an object.

It's like word association. You think gun means mass shooting. Or mass shooting means gun. But there are hundreds of millions of guns in our country so relatively few mass shootings associated with them.

 

We already have a black market for gun smuggling.....do a google for "iron pipeline" regarding guns. My proposal cuts down (at least) the folk willing to run the gauntlet, as criminals really don't like paper trails...and private sellers will be more cautious as to whom they sell to, as a paper trail leads back to them.

 

No no licensing or registration. The government doesn't need to know who owns what guns, that undermines the security of the free state..

 

Your first sentence is bogus, as the chronology of the posts shows that time and again I supported what I state/propose with valid, documented facts.

As suspected, you did just as I asked you not to do...supply more supposition and opinion than actual valid documentation of your previous statement. Then you display ignorance of the subject matter. Case in point: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/chart-and-after-the-assault

don't put forth challenges that essentially you know are unproveable. I didn't.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/14/ar-15-mass-shootings/339519002/

 

You previously made a statement that is and can be proven wrong if you do the honest research as suggested and couple it with my proposal. Instead, you respond with the paranoid mantras peddled by the NRA and gun manufacturers. Given that any law abiding adult in any state can obtain a choice of fire arms WITHIN THE RULES OF STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, your statement is absurd.

 

Sorry, but you can't just emphasize one part of the 2nd Amendment and then try to diminish the other. Like it or not, AFTER the American Revolution, the newly defined states did indeed have gun regulation in order for a well regulated militia to exist. Look it up! And for the umpteeth time, the 2nd Amendment does NOT mean you can have any type of weapon you want....if that were the case, your neighbor would have a 50 caliber mounted on his front lawn, and you could have a RPG as a counter. Or the guy down the street can stockpile whatever he wants and sell to whomever he chooses.

Fortunately, we don't live like that thanks to federal and state regulation. My proposal just gives the bad guys an extra hurdle that can discourage many.

 

A well regulated malitia being necessary to the security of a free state. The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

1. A well regulated malitia.. every able bodied man ages 18-40
2. Being necessary to the security of a free state... this confuses a lot of people. What does it mean. Does it mean to fight against foreign enemies? Nope. Does itean to fight crime? Nope. Can the malita help in thoes things? Yup. What it means is to secure the freedom within the state, to keep people from losing their freedom.. who has the ability to take freedom from the American people? Only the American government!

Here is a paraphrase. America needs able bodied men to be armed so that should the government start to become tyrannical there is someone to oppose it and defeat it and to restore constitutional order.
That, is the purpose of gun ownership in America!

We need an American population armed and capable of defeating our police and military. That is the only way to have security for the free state.

Yes i oppose licensing and allowing the government to track who owns what guns.
Why? Only a tyrant would want that information... how about we enforce the gun laws we already have before we start dreaming up new ones.

Mass shooting are a tiny problem compared to gun confiscation ohh I'm sorry i mean gun buybacks...

 

Your links have nothing to do with your claim.

Here is your claim and my claim.

A simple reading of the federal AWB, which was supplied to you through Wikipedia, proves you wrong. Period. You don’t know what you are talking about. If you can’t read the bill and understand why you are wrong you are just going to have to stumble around in the dark, because I’m weary of you posting state law, crap from Maddow or wherever that doesn’t know the difference between semiautomatic weapons and automatic weapons, etc.

Good luck with your ban. At this point it’s pretty obvious we have nothing to fear. If this thread is representative of banner’s political and policy acumen, I should be more concerned about an army of toddlers with Red Bull in their bottles. Maybe not more concerned. About the same...

 

The AR/AK rifle accounts for less than 1% of ALL gun deaths.

 

Re:

Even a cursory knowledge of history reveals how your proposal is just another step toward the totalitarian confiscation of ALL privately owned firearms.

I lived, studied and worked in Germany long ago where my German landlady/landlord observed that:
"Americans do not appreciate the many freedoms they have and one day will lose them, incrementally, just like we did in the 1930s for the sake of security."

That observation has stuck with me over the decades as I have watched legalized government theft via "Civil Forfeiture Laws", the evisceration of the 4th Amendment via "Sobriety Checkpoints", the "Patriot Act" and similar totalitarian abuses masquerading as measures to make us more secure.

The problems they were intended to resolve are still there or have worsened while our government strips us of our rights & property.

We have more than enough gun laws for any benign & competent government to accomplish its goals if that were its intent but it is the nature of governments to seek absolute control over its citizens.

Your proposals with its "paper trails" only serve to further a grasping government's goal of having absolute control over law abiding citizens while doing nothing to make us any safer.

Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws just as a determined killer will find a way to kill with or without an "assault rifle".
The solution lies in treating the killer before he kills and for that we need more affordable and accessible Mental Health Care not more gun laws.

 

You seem to have convinced yourself that your personal supposition and conjecture passes for historically documented facts and the logic derived from them. No matter how you approach it, you just parrot the SOS compiled of NRA talking points that have LONG since debunked.
Essentially, you've wasted time and space because all one has to do is click the arrow to back track the discussion to see how you stubbornly avoid acknowledging a simple fact..... any law abiding adult in any state can obtain a choice of fire arms WITHIN THE RULES OF STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The 2nd Amendment doesn't mean you can have any type of weapon you want...never did, as I laid out why previously. You want to be part of an official militia to have a full auto weapon or higher grade assault rifle? JOIN THE NATIONAL GUARD! Or check out if your state has officially recognized militia, and what are their REGULATIONS (there's that pesky word again) regarding type of weapons and ownership/availability.

weapons manufacturers only see keeping sales in the black on the charts....and the NRA are their flunkies. I previously gave proof as to why the AR-15 has been a weapon of choice for a good number of mass shootings, and how they wouldn't have been if the 1994 AWB was still in place. Also, my proposal does NOT keep you from buying/selling guns....it just gives the bad guys another hurdle they may not want to jump, and keep people from stupidly selling their personally owned guns to any clown without a full background check. Like I said, ain't perfect but a small improvement on the status quo (Texas, OH, etc.). Carry on.

 

[QUOTE="557, post: 1071026953, member: 79214"

]Your links have nothing to do with your claim.

Here is your claim and my claim.

A simple reading of the federal AWB, which was supplied to you through Wikipedia, proves you wrong. Period. You don’t know what you are talking about. If you can’t read the bill and understand why you are wrong you are just going to have to stumble around in the dark, because I’m weary of you posting state law, crap from Maddow or wherever that doesn’t know the difference between semiautomatic weapons and automatic weapons, etc.

Good luck with your ban. At this point it’s pretty obvious we have nothing to fear. If this thread is representative of banner’s political and policy acumen, I should be more concerned about an army of toddlers with Red Bull in their bottles. Maybe not more concerned. About the same...[/QUOTE]

You keep making an assertion, yet you provide NO quotes, NO valid references or sources to back you up. Sorry to burst your bubble, but your supposition and conjecture are not substitute for facts and the logic derived from those facts. So instead of just an extended gain saying of what I post and source, try putting up some documented, valid proof via what sources you deem as such....or spare the readers more of your smoke blowing.

And let me yank the rug from under one of your oft repeated mantras....you refer to the ALTERED OR MODIFIED AR-15 that gun shops/sellers used to skirt the law. After the 1994 AWB sunset, the straight up version (cheaper than the modified ones) started selling like hotcakes (as documented in the links). And said weapons were used on numerous mass shooting occasions. A matter of fact, a matter of history whether you acknowledge it or not.

 

The more fact based logical assertions I put forth, the more supposition and conjecture folk of your mindset comes back with...with a sprinkling of NRA mantras and revisionist looks at history.

So tell me, exactly what federal law in the last 70 years regarding gun regulation and control has resulted in a generalized confiscation of legally bought weapons? Since when has this country devolved into Nazi Germany (well, one could argue that the Trump presidency is a start, but that's for another discussion)? Should be an easy thing to document, if all you assert is true. I'll wait.

 

Read the text of the law. That is a source. It is fact. It is not subjective. Existing weapons were grandfathered. It’s not debatable. They were available during the ban and would be today if the ban had been extended. Nobody will ever take anything you say seriously on this subject now. Thanks for accomplishing that pretty much on your own.

 

First, please explain what, exactly, is "revisionist" about the fact that all totalitarian regimes have had the banning of private gun ownership as part of their rise to power?

The second part of your post is as illogical as the first part is erroneous.
You're asserting that just because something has not happened yet, it can't happen.
Does that mean that you can quit wearing your seatbelt just because you haven't had an auto accident....yet?

 

The 2A protects an individuals right to possess the same weapons as its enemies foreign or domestic.

 

Okay, let's try this one more time:

YOU MADE THE STATEMENTS AND ASSERTIONS, THEREFORE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU! PROOF IS PROVIDING SOURCES OF INFORMATION THAT ARE VALID AND DOCUMENTED TO SUPPORT WHAT YOU ASSERT.....NOT REPEATING YOUR OPINION, SUPPOSITION OR CONJECTURE AD NAUSEA.

The chronology of the posts backs me up on this. If you can't do this simple due diligence, then repeating your drivel makes out to be a liar. Carry on.