One of the biggest lies in the current political divide

was that due to desire or political reality. I maintain that those who want to ban the sale of AR 15s would confiscate those currently owned if the political or blood price was not too high for them

 

I’m a bottom line kind of guy. I don’t care what someone would do. I only care what someone CAN do.

 

Which means what, exactly?

 

Are you serious? Are you saying you don't know the difference between wanting to do something versus being able to do something? Said another way...talk means nothing. Actions are what matters. People say things all the time....means jack schitt.

 

I want to know what it means to you with regards to gun control. As a former battalion S-2, I'm familiar with intentions vs capabilities wirh a military perspective.

 

Read post #124. It should be VERY self-explanatory.

 

Thanks for the reference. Of course, the ATF doesn't have to do everything by themselves.

"Dear resident. We've check the records, and have determined that you own a firearm now classified as a banned assault weapon, serial number 8410012. Please turn it in to the nearest police station and send a photocopy of the police receipt to this address: nobuyback@atf.gov. Failure to do so within 15 days of this notice will result in the following penalties:
All federal and state tax refunds to be withheld.
All federal and state pension payments to be withheld.
Your employer, Dell Corp, will be notified that you retain an illegal assault weapon.
A fine of $750 USD will be assessed weekly until the notice of the return of your illegal assault weapon is received by this office.
Have a nice day"

 

That's a nice 'what if' scenario. Never happened with the 1994 federal assault weapons ban. Never happened with the MA assault weapons ban. No bump stocks were confiscated when those were banned. No high capacity magazines were ever confiscated in states that banned them.

 

Past performance is not necessarily indicative of the future.

 

More often than not it is. Hence…history repeats itself.

 

That's going to be hard to prove for any particular issue.

 

I am a proactive person and a creative thinker. If someone tells me they want to do something that is harmful to me, I start right away planning to prevent that. I don't wait until they have done the harmful action because it is usually easier to prevent harm than rectify it after it has visited itself upon one's environment.

 

what exactly is the status of the bump stocks that many citizens still retain? what about those normal capacity magazines? what exactly do you gain by pretending that no harm has been imposed by those stupid bans? are you trying to get gun owners to drop their guard or are you trying to justify idiotic laws because they aren't all that oppressive?

 

It is a disingenuous attempt to downplay what the democrats want to do

 

Um...where did I say no harm has been imposed by those stupid bans. You seem to be inflicted with the same disease others have where you read what you THINK is being said instead of what is ACTUALLY being said.
Pointing out what has occurred does not equal supporting what has occurred. Got it?

 

What specifically have you done to stop bans? For example, what did you do to stop the bump stock ban? what did you do to stop the 1994 federal assault weapons ban?

 

Incorrect. I don't support "assault" weapons bans or high capacity mag bans. Let me say that again so you won't be able to mistake what was posted....I DON'T SUPPORT "ASSUALT" WEAPONS BANS OR HIGH CAPACITY MAG BANS.

 

What actually is being said is "End gun violence", "no more mass shootings", and "no more school shootings". There's only one way to get there.

We can add:

"Japan has almost completely eliminated gun deaths — here's how"
https://www.businessinsider.com/gun...most-completely-eliminated-gun-deaths-2017-10

"Other Countries Had Mass Shootings. Then They Changed Their Gun Laws"
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.html

Gun control advocates are telling us what they really want, even if they don't realize it.

 

you sure seem to spend a lot of time sounding like the Democrats are really no danger to gun ownership in the USA while ignoring that if there had been one more democrat on the court during Heller, everything would be different now

 

That's because you read what you THINK is being posted instead of what is ACTUALLY being posted. Pointing out that there have been no gun confiscations due to federal and state bans on assault weapons is just pointing out facts. Is it wrong to point out facts?

 

there have been gun confiscations in some states. so stop the nonsense. The Florio ban in NJ led to some firearms being confiscated. A Ruger Mini 14 was confiscated in Cincinnati since its as not registered for the grandfather clause. However, the trial judge threw out the charge because Ohio had just passed a pre-emption statute that prevented Cincinnati's gun ban from remaining.

 

https://www.njspotlightnews.org/201...-guns-greatly-hampered-by-inaction-elsewhere/

Six states, including New Jersey, require registration of assault weapons purchased prior to bans. New Jersey, however, also demands that any pre-ban assault guns that are kept must be rendered inoperable.

 

Do you have documented proof the assault weapons ban in NJ led to assault weapons being confiscated?

 

So no confiscation

 

yeah, there were numerous cases reported after that law went into effect and weapons not rendered inoperable (ie worthless) are subject to confiscation. Suffer a robbery and the cops see such a weapon-its forfeited. What is your purpose in trying to downplay the nastiness of democrat gun laws?