In other words, repeal ALL presently existing gun control laws while subsidizing guns for the poor and I MAY not shoot you if you dare ever suggest any Try mine Declare ALL guns illegal, possession of same is an automatic death penalty, period I MAY just give you a year to turn them all in before I say the police have orders to shoot to kill. Wattaya say?
Especially if those crowds are in a gun-free zone... Fallacy: Argumentum ad populum Because it is impossible to soundly demonstrate the necessity for, and the efficacy of, such a restriction.
Big Government "progressives" eventually always reveal their nihilist dreams of mass executions, genocide and totalitarian political persecution. American Democrats should probably hide such fantasies until they figure out how to actually win elections instead of rigging them and getting caught. "… from 1900 to 1987 governments MURDERED almost ***170*** MILLION people ... far exceeds the 34.4 million battle deaths ... from all...wars fought during the same period.... democratic governments were responsible for only about one percent of the twentieth century's death toll from democide...." THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, "The World In Numbers," "Murder By The State," Vol. 292 NO. #4, 11/20. (*** mine) The Atlantic's source: "Rummels books on the subject - particularly "Death By Government" (1994) and "Statistics of Democide" (1997).
Anyone who is law abiding and is willing to pay for a $200 tax stamp can legally own a fully automatic firearm. Sadly most people and many here are clueless as to what fully fully automatic weaponry actually is, or how useless it would be to use in a mass shooting. Because assault style rifles and nothing more than semi-automatic rifles with black furniture, they are no different than a semi-automatic rifle with wood furniture, other than how they look. And none of it can be extended to either full-auto or semi-auto firearms as that infringes upon the Second Amendment.
I say your a your are a person who wish's to kill innocent law abiding people to achieve a useless goal. That's sick, very, very, sick.
By where did I state anywhere in that post you may not shoot me? Do you have a obsession with wanting to shoot innocent law abiding people? And yes when it comes to a compromise both side give up a little, and you totally failed to understand that and it clearly shows you are a GCA, who is not interested in any compromise, all you want is a total un-Constitutional ban on all firearms at any cost including the killing innocent law abiding people. And you and yours wonder why we are unwilling to give people like you an inch of compromise, however I do sincerely thank you for exposing how bitter you are about law abiding people owning firearms and how totally authoritarian you are and wishing to enforce your laws with the barrel of a firearm.
Our corrupt political class always tends to gin up a lot of hate late in an election cycle. This is obviously a vary dangerous strategy.
The anti-2nd amendment politicians who incite that kind of hate are the real sickos. The people who are manipulated into advocating mass violence are usually the first victims.
History has demonstrated many times, those who advocate a mass change in government, are referred to by the prospective new government as useful people, they are played like fiddles by the new government and if takeover is successful, they are thoroughly thanked and then put on a list. The new government understands they sold out their fellow countrymen, cannot be trusted and will probably do the same for a newer government they may fall for, as such they are rounded up, kneeled next to a deep ditch and either receive a shot to the back of the head, or just kicked into the ditch and buried alive. Next in line are those who are non-productive or do not fit into the new norm. Therefore, those who advocate a fundamental change of any country, or it's Constitution, need to fully understand, they may be the first ones to be eliminated by the incoming government, as they are transitioned from useful people, to a liability.
Demonstrate precisely which weapons have been proven as capable of killing hundreds of individuals with ease. If one honestly cannot differentiate between a musket and a nuclear device, then they are in no position to be dictating what others should and should not be able to have legal access to. Most people also accept the popular vote matters in the election for president of the united states. But what they accept is factually incorrect. Fully-automatic firearms remain legal to anyone who wishes to own such, their restrictions and regulations exist solely for the purpose of taxation, as the united states federal government acknowledged it was legally impossible to prohibit their ownership. For the simple reason the law in question was drafted in a very specific manner, to limit its scope to only a very limited selection of firearms, rather than all firearms in general. It is legally not possible to expand the scope of the national firearms act to apply to all firearms, or even specifically semi-automatic firearms, as it would automatically amount to taxation of a constitutional right, no different than requiring a tax to vote in an election. That matter aside, the matter would never pass the standard of strict scrutiny in a court of law, which includes, among other things, government demonstrating what it is proposing is the least invasive, most narrowly tailored approach possible of achieving a compelling interest. And the degree of regulation that is being proposed cannot possibly be considered the least invasive approach possible.
Any semi-automatic weapon with a low recoil can kill hundreds of people with ease, the only limitation is imposed by how fast a crowd can disperse, the magazine size and the shooter's skill at reloading, the Las Vegas and Orlando shootings demonstrated that rather clearly Both kill their victims just as dead The Popular vote determines the Electoral Vote and therefore who is President, your saying the Popular vote "does not matter" is factually incorrect. It is not the final determinant as our very sad recent experience makes clear, but it matters very much in the usual circumstances. The restrictions on auto-fire weapons may be ostensibly for taxation but they may make owning such very difficult for most people. I would accept similar taxes and restrictions on all firearms as a method of controlling their ownership and use Please cite the law(s) stipulating that the government must demonstrate a law must be the least invasive and most narrowly tailored approach possible of achieving a compelling interest. I have heard the necessity of a compelling interest cited but have never heard of the other two and wonder how they might be clearly determined at all.
The sailors of the Kronstadt naval base are a good example of that. They got the government they installed - good and hard.
Please re-state where you were willing to give up anything except your "right " to somehow keep me from advocating gun control.
No, I wish to enforce a law against people who would keep dangerous weapons in violation of it. It is not uncommon for such laws to be draconian, indeed it can be argued that is necessary
Every mass shooting in the US, save for Las Vegas, could have been perpetrated, with like results, by a person with a pump-action shotgun. In each of the 51 elections. The aggregate total of those 51 elections determines nothing, and thus does not matter. You cannot demonstrate the necessit for or efficacy of, this restriction.
The gun laws of Australia and the entirety of western Europe enable mass-murdering madmen. Why don't they have mass shootings like we do?
I've posted a video of a shootout between two police officers and two criminals. The entire shootout happened within a maximum of 20 feet from each other. Total shots fired about 50+. Injuries and deaths: 0. Hitting a target, for trained good-guys or for bad-guys, under stress and fearing for your own life, is harder than it looks. Having enough bullets to keep the pressure on the bad-guys for longer than they can keep the pressure on you, even if you don't hit or kill them, is critical to your survival. If you can change a magazine in under 2 seconds and, effectively, have unlimited rounds, 10 at a time, then why bother to restrict large magazines? Your own question demonstrates that you don't believe such a ban will actually accomplish anything; it seems more like you're simply repeating the ramblings of those who promise you more of the taxpayers money. If I ever do end up in a war zone, I'd like to have enough firepower and ammunition to protect the lives of my family, my own life, and to honor my oath to defend the Constitution from enemies, internal or foreign.... or foreign internal.
The officer in the video wasn't pursuing a machete-wielding assailant until the machete-wielding assailant was assailing others. Like the machete-wielding assailant who attacked an unarmed family December 28. Unfortunately, machete-wielding assailants kill people while waiting on the police. Please provide any documented instance where any legal gun holder, not intentionally committing a crime, turned any street int o a shooting gallery. There are about a million law-enforcement officers in the US today. There are about a hundred million legal gun owners in the US. Even so, you are far more likely to be shot by a policeman than you are by a legal gun owner using his or her gun to stop a crime. https://www.foxnews.com/us/nypd-9-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire
What if your wife and children are right behind a legal gun owner. And, assuming your correct in that the legal owner's 10+ rounds only make him tie with the shooter's 10+ rounds, so shooter kills good guy and good guy kills shooter - a tie. But if the good guy only had 9 rounds and the bad guy kills the good guy before the good guy kills him, guess who's next? An interesting trick of the ant-gun, socialist, left is to call any shooting, no matter the circumstances, where 3 or more are killed a mass shooting but any shooting where only two are killed because a good-guy with a gun kills the bad guy is not recorded as a mass shooting or even as a mass shooting stopped.
Yours will be? When you turn 21? Good luck in a firefight with a gun that big. Your struggle won't be whether the shooter goes down when hit, you'll never hit him... Are you going to be a better shot, in a fight for your life, with your .44 Magnum than are these cops with their much lighter weapons?
I've been liking a lot of your recent posts in this thread; I think you have good intentions but you really need to dig deeper in your understanding of gun control law and the Constitution because this post shows significant ignorance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968 Your very first compromise suggestion is to get rid of the GCA 1968 and then you insist that every felon caught carrying a gun gets 25 years. The primary tenet of law from the GCA 1968 was that felons could not carry guns. Prior to that, for the first 179 years of our history no congress ever even thought to take guns from those who had paid their debt to society. The Federal Firearms Act (FFA) 1938 created the first felon ban but only for violent criminals. You also don't understand compromise. When gun controllers, you included, come to compromise you come with nothing to give. The Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. From there, what can you offer me to tempt me into a deal? And, of course, if your compromise was ever agreed to (thankfully it would never happen because it's idiotic on all levels) then it wouldn't be the end of compromise; you and the gun controllers will come right back with the next level of compromise - starting with using your new database of every gun in the country to go back and start taking those guns.
