Antigun groups once again display ignorance

They are certainly getting somewhere with it.

Perhaps you have a different experience and outlook based on where you live?

In California I've seen firearms become more and more restricted as anti-gun leftists have gained power. While the limit on rounds a firearm may carry, or obtaining a permit to purchase ammo might be inconvenient, much more bothersome is California's Department of Justice having to approve 'safe' firearms before they can be sold in the state. This has evolved from preventing the sale of junk 'Saturday Night Specials' to gun manufactures having to comply with extensive and expensive safety testing (and thus not offering their firearms for sale in the state) to now resulting in California's attempt to only allow new handguns capable of microstamping be available for sale:

http://www.guns.com/2017/03/23/california-supreme-court-to-hear-microstamping-challenge/

One might look at the actions of these leftists and shrug, but as a lifelong resident who has witnessed the slow, steady purge of firearms it is apparent what the eventual goal is. Heck, our senator Feinstein even has a rather revealing video floating around that admits this.

The way leftists have corrupted the constitution, specifically the judicial branch, it is also apparent that an eventual goal of a SCOTUS decision banning most classes of firearms is how they will do this.

So, yeah, I'm worried. And as I've explained, these antigun nuts are certainly not the outliers in California; they are the mainstream...

 

Translation: You cannot ,meaningfully respond to my post. As per the norm.

 

Its even less than that.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...wewapons-and-mass-shootings-in-the-us.499599/

 

So... ban handguns, shotguns and bolt action rifles?
How do you suppose this will pass constitutional muster?

I also find it odd you don't seek a ban on 'assault weapons', but...

 

Enforce the current laws. Recall?

 

Surprising no one, you made this number up.

This statement is false; you cannot in any way prove this statement true.

You know there's been at least 2 'assault weapons' used in a mass shooting in CA over the last year or so - right?

 

If it can emulate or simulate automatic fire, then for all intents and purposes it is automatic fire and is the equivalent of a military weapon especially when combined with a large magazine capacity.

Try again...

 

I showed what California's regs actually are. They don't match your claims. Care to explain your concern?

 

More trolling?

Oh

 

Banning rifles, handguns, and powder?? I don't think so.


[/QUOTE] Perhaps you have a different experience and outlook based on where you live? In California I've seen firearms become more and more restricted as anti-gun leftists have gained power. While the limit on rounds a firearm may carry, or obtaining a permit to purchase ammo might be inconvenient, much more bothersome is California's Department of Justice having to approve 'safe' firearms before they can be sold in the state. This has evolved from preventing the sale of junk 'Saturday Night Specials' to gun manufactures having to comply with extensive and expensive safety testing (and thus not offering their firearms for sale in the state) to now resulting in California's attempt to only allow new handguns capable of microstamping be available for sale:

http://www.guns.com/2017/03/23/california-supreme-court-to-hear-microstamping-challenge/ [/QUOTE]
So were is what you said: a ban on rifles, handguns, and powder? It's not there. So your statement is false.
Now, apparently you oppose sale firearms, banning cheap, unsafe guns? That all seems entirely appropriate to me. I owned a cheap 22 caliber revolver once. Every time I fired it I got a dusting of powder burns from where the cylinder met the barrel. And it was wildly inaccurate.

BTW, how does a handgun "microstamp", whatever that is?

I'll bet people still legally own firearms in California. You're resisting common-sense and needed regulations.

EXCUSE ME!???? The S.C. has been taken over by right wingers. The Constitution remains as it has been for many, many years. I think you're way "over-the-top" here.

Yes, mostly about horror story fantasies that you tell yourself.

 

Lovely how you deflect there, but not very well. My post is explicitly about assault weapons.

A weapon that is light, compact, and designed to fire a light-caliber boattail bullet at great distances, combined with a magazine capacity of 20+ rounds is NOT a weapon designed for "hunting" or any other stupid excuse you can come up with.

I have no problem with shotguns or bolt or lever action rifles, and handguns so long as they remain handguns. Thumbing through any gun aficionado magazine at the newsstand will easily reveal a number of contraptions and devices designed to reconfigure handguns into an assault style weapon. Prior to the Las Vegas shooting, I had never even heard of bump stocks, but I have been aware for many decades of a number of aftermarket add-on to these weapons.

So how does hiding behind the technicalities and definitions of what is or isn't an assault weapon "common sense" when the end results are the same?

So go on with your next point, which I predict will more than likely be a false analogy argument.

 

We don't with out a background check that makes a top secret clearances look like poorly worded playing twenty questions with a third grader.

 

Oh look -- you are again unable to prove a meaningful response to a challenge of your statement.
No one is surprised.

 

Your post is , in actuality, about everything -except- 'assault weapons'.

Your statement:
"....don't sell a weapon that fulfills the needs of any modern military requirement"

The military, currently, has a requirement for handguns, shotguns and bolt-action rifles and evidenced by the fact that all five branches of the US military issue such weapons; thus, your use of the term "any requirement" necessarily includes these firearms.
Similarly, no military has a requirement for any sort of 'assault weapon' as evidenced by the fact no military issues such a weapon - instead, they issue assault rifles, which we all know are not the same thing.

Thus, my posts stands - you believe the sale of handguns, shotguns and bolt-action rifles should be banned, but not 'assault weapons'.

Aside from the fact that every center fire cartridge ranging from 5.56x45 to 7.62x63 - and thus,e the rifles that fire them - are well suited for hunting....
The right to keep and bear arms isn't about hunting, its about killing people, whenever the need arises.
'Assault weapons', in common use for any if not all of the traditionally legal purposes for a firearm, are quite likely the best weapons for this job; as such they qualify as a 'bearable arms' and enjoy the protection of the 2nd.

 

As expected...drowning the argument in stupid details and wrap around the 2nd Amendment.

It's really pointless arguing with your type. You never present any solutions to the issue of mass killings by these preferred weapons of choice, and in fact try to childishly argue "it's the price we have to pay".

Your feeble arguments will eventually at some point lead to the very things you are afraid of losing, because you will not acknowledge these weapons provide an edge that no other weapon does as effectively. Why not make us laugh with providing how Paddock would have been able to accomplish the same results with handguns, shotguns, and bolt action rifles.

 

I quoted YOU and the "stupid details" of what YOU said.
Does your statement not mean exactly what I said it means?
If so, how?

I know you'd like to divorce the 2nd from a conversation about the right to keep and bear arms, but that's no more possible than divorcing the 1st from a discussion about the right to free speech.
The 2nd is there. Don't like it? Repeal it. Until then you don't get to ignore it, nor any reference made to it.

If by that you mean people like me who aren't swayed by your fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, then you're right.
But, that's due to the faulty nature of your argument, and nothing else.

You are apparently unaware of the fact most "mass killings" are perpetrated with a handgun...

I'm sorry -- I don;t wee where you meaningfully addressed my responses to your posts; instead, have chose to address me, personally.
If said responses are so feeble, why haven't, you addressed them?
For reference, I'll repeat myself:

Your statement:
"....don't sell a weapon that fulfills the needs of any modern military requirement"

The military, currently, has a requirement for handguns, shotguns and bolt-action rifles and evidenced by the fact that all five branches of the US military issue such weapons; thus, your use of the term "any requirement" necessarily includes these firearms.
Similarly, no military has a requirement for any sort of 'assault weapon' as evidenced by the fact no military issues such a weapon - instead, they issue assault rifles, which we all know are not the same thing.

Thus, my posts stands - you believe the sale of handguns, shotguns and bolt-action rifles should be banned, but not 'assault weapons'.

 

They are making bump stocks illegal even as we speak. To my knowledge that is the only way to make them even remotely full auto.

 

Great,. Let's preempt this dishonest NRA inspired nonsense and simply ban the sale of ALL magazine fed semi-auto weapons.

There.

Problem solved and no more bullshit

 

I think we were addressing the issue of whether there were any new regs that might be proposed... an whether or not gun rights advocates would be willing to identify such new regulations.... the answer seems to remain no

But now let’s turn to enforcing the current law

This country is for the must part run by people who support gun rights
In theory... they would be the people who would be in charge of enforcing existing law
Which would ...as you say... result in a dramatic decline in gun violence
And which, as a result, woild completely undermine any calls for new regulations

So.... why dont gun rights advocates lead the charge in enforcing existing laws?

 

The law is very specific. Your argument is on the wrong side of it.
Try again.

 

Nah. The company that makes them just put them back up for sale.
The only way they can become illegal is thru legislation - legislation that will never happen.

 

Your absence of a meaningful, cogent response aside...
Hold your breath. Please.

 

Yep.
And the point was that until the current laws are fully enforced, there's no demonstrable need for further laws.

Pro-gun groups - like the NRA - support he campaigns of prosecutors, attorneys general and judges who do, or will do, just that.

 

So what are they doing to make sure that a Vegas attack can't happen?

Where are they pushing for better back ground checks?

 

Read your own wiki page link re microstamping. Wiki (no surprise) does't include the information re current court challenges, as I provided. The wiki page also doesn't have any information re the state DOJ's program to approve firearms for sale. But then again, you used wikipedia to provide the substance of your argument.

You obviously don't live in California and have little familiarity with the gun regulations here. But you do have access to wikipedia, which I guess makes you an expert on California gun law?

You have an opportunity to educate your self here; whether you decide to do so is up to you...