Stop blaming the NRA for failed gun control efforts

What do you suppose Feinstein means by "assault weapons"?
Meanwhile:

1. "165 House Dems propose new ‘assault weapon ban’ that would extend to pistols and shotguns"
https://sofrep.com/100245/165-house...an-that-would-extend-to-pistols-and-shotguns/
EXCERPT "Cicilline outlined the primary changes being called for, which include the prohibition of sale, transfer, production, and importation of all semi-automatic rifles and pistols “with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine,” any semi-automatic rifles that can hold more than ten rounds, semi-automatic shotguns with “military-style” features, and also ammunition feeding devices that can be used in place of magazines that hold more than ten rounds.By these standards, pistols like the Glock 19 and Glock 17 would be subject to this “assault weapon” ban, though lower magazine capacity pistols like the 1911 would not."CONTINUED


2. "WATCH: Gun Control Activist Gives Perfect Reason Not To Give Into Their Demands"

https://www.dailywire.com/news/2865...lywire.com&utm_term=68804&utm_content=2209149
EXCERPT "When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile."CONTINUED



3. "Ban all guns, now"
https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/ban-all-guns-now/Content?oid=2147131

 

To use that misquote informs me that you haven't bothered with any quality control.

You didn't provide anything of importance did you? Other than the misquote, you focused on calls for increased gun control. You did refer to one opinion piece, proving that indeed there exists some people who want to ban firearms. Wow! You've proved there exists a distribution of opinions. Well done.

 

If you had paid attention, my whole point is that there are influential politicians with policy making power & other persuasive public figures would like something like the unconstitutional, confiscatory types of gun control approach that has been popular among totalitarian regimes.

In simpler terms, the 2nd Amendment is facing a genuine threat of pointless evisceration by people able to do it while accomplishing nothing.

 

This is just rant though isn't it? You were caught out pretending a quote was real. You weren't able to support your opinion except with an opinion piece of no interest.

The US has always had gun control. The idea that the demands for optimal gun control is some sort of conspiracy is of course knuckle dragging stuff.

 

The U.S. did NOT have any Gun control in 1873, you could buy any firearms with only cash, no licenses or registration, machine guns were taxed after 1930, and 1968 was when registration began, in N.Y.C. 1911, the Sullivan law.

 

You've already been educated on this. It amazes me how little you lot know about your own history. There isn't much of it after all!

 

Quit lying, in 1873 the only requirement to purchase firearms was cash.
There were no licenses no registration no requirements whatsoever,
Stop Whinging.

 

He'd much rather use gobbledegook.

 

How does he excuse outright lies ?
He must know by now, 1873 had no Gun Control for regular Citizens.

 

He's probably misinterpreting local laws for Federal law and doesn't know the difference.

 

Exactly, the Dodge city type laws against carry,
Unconstitutional in any case.

 

Its a shame that you don't know your own history. Here's an easy means into the historical info...

https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364

No need to thank me!

 

Yes !

Eli Whitney finally established a uniform standard of firearms manufacturer, before then, firearms were not standard and all parts were filed into form rather than a standard of meaures, a trigger guard or hammer or trigger was not interchangeable.

He established within specific models, interchangeable parts, then finally in a demonstration, disassembled many muskets, shuffled the parts, and easily reassembled them from random, an astounding feat at the time.

Today, we still measure bore diameter since best accuracy and bore dimension variations still exist to varying degrees sufficient to affect accuracy with variance of projectiles.

 

This amused me. The other person has agreed that he used a misquote. That you'd compare that with a piece by American historians is laughable, merely demonstrating how ideology hinders logical comment.

Of course you shouldn't just rely on the online source. You can also read the analysis in depth via the available publication: Cornell & DeDino, 2004, A Well-Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control, 73 Fordham Law Review.

Again, no need to thank me. Just knowing that you're getting a better history of your own country is enough credit!

 

Your completely off the beaten path as usual and use of classic misdirection and deflection noted,
My simple example stands, as late as 1873, an important milestone in firearms,
Modern breach loaders and ammunition, ie self contained modern cartridge firing Arms, convenient Revolvers, and still, no restrictions on purchase of firearms, inconceivable, no Registration, no licenses, no prerequisite.
You know this is true, Regardless if the founding fathers loved gun control, it did not exist.

1873 had the Gatling gun in existence, a muti barrel crank operated rapid firing mechanical non gas firing machine gun.
And it including breach firing Weapons of War needed not any license, only cash.

So your many citations are indeed Groundless and vanish in a puff of Logic.

 

Historical evidence, in quality publication, which demonstrates that everything I've said has been correct. Now you don't mind that the other fellow used misinformation, with a made-up quote. However, when I correctly refer to your history you blow a gasket.

I appreciate that you fellows would love to re-write the history books. I appreciate reality is an inconvenience for you. However, I'm afraid you're going to have to suck it up.

 

Happy for you to provide counter evidence that disputes the findings by the Cornell & DeDino (2004, A Well-Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control, 73 Fordham Law Review). Good luck!

 

Our Second Amendment is the supreme law of the land and we should have, no security problems in our free States.

 

If it were not for the interferences of not only your local-level governments, but also the federal-level government, perhaps there would be no such problems to contend with.

 

Our Second Amendment is the supreme law of the land; not any other propaganda.

 

Then tell your governments to stop violating the law.

 

tell that to the right wing; we have a Second Amendment to limit Government propaganda regarding the People's right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

 

And pray tell, exactly what is the so-called "right wing" doing in this particular matter, that is interfering with anything? Explain such.

 

is there no group of Citizens complaining about right wing, denial and disparagement of natural rights, regarding keeping and bearing Arms in our Republic?

 

Answer the question, do not present more questions in response. If there is indeed a legitimate point to be made by yourself, then do so. State precisely what is meant by yourself, not anything else.