The lack of thought (or understanding) they put into gun control bills.

HR 127 is full of them. But I've chosen just one as an example. One particular glaringly pathetic lack of clarification in the upcoming HR 127 is this:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater"

Thats it. Nothing further to this, just everything 1/2 inch and greater is illegal now.

For one, that bans most common black powder, single-shot muzzleloaders that even the most rabid gun controller will tacitly admit that surely the 2A must be intended to protect at least those...

For two, can anyone provide a link to anyone having been murdered with a .50 caliber rifle? I know it almost never happens... and I kinda think it never happens at all. Whats the worry with .50cal?

And no mention made of shotguns. Shotguns are measured by 'gauge' (12g and 20g being the most common)., However, 'gauge' is an antiquated measure of weight/volume that has virtually lost all meaning since the advent of accurate measuring devices, and has a wide variety of technical meanings. Most, if not all states have 'shotgun season' for deer hunting. When hunting deer with a shotgun, slugs are used so as to achieve a level of penetration that kills the deer quickly, as opposed to shooting the deer with 'shot' which would be incredibly cruel and sadistic. Both 20 gauge and 12 gauge shotgun slugs exceed 1/2" diameter, aka .50 caliber. I would like to think that HR 127 isn't intended to ban 12 gauge and 20 gauge slugs or the bulk of muzzleloaders and thus throwing a huge monkey wrench into many states hunting and conservation while banning some of the least commonly used weapons/ammo used in person on person violence... but thats what this law technically would do.

You'd think of the presumably hundreds of legislators, lawyers, aids and other people that are involved in the creation of a lengthy and complicated piece of legislation as this, someone would have the very rudimentary understanding of firearms dynamics and capacity for reason (or, hell, just consult someone who does) to understand the complication inherent to such a simple lack of clarification. BUT THEY NEVER DO!!!! Its always this same confusing crap- people who either don't know F-all about guns trying to write laws meant to effectively regulate them- or written by people who just don't give a F whether they're interpretable and enforcible or not.

Why do they keep doing this? I'm especially interested in hearing from those who tend to support this type of legislation- please please please tell me why they can't make this stuff at least make sense???

 

Gotta ban those 30 magazine round clips and assault revolvers as well. These people are idiots just throwing random crap at the wall hoping something will stick.

 

And a 12 gauge shotgun round is about .72 caliber.

 

What's a 30 magazine round clip?

 

No one knows. Hell, they dont even know. That's what you get when people who know exactly jack squat about guns try to enact legislation against them...

 

They are doing us a favor though. Liberals and gun haters are the best gun salesmen on the planet...

 

Every time they try to enact new gun laws, 2 million more get purchased before it goes into effect...

 

I can see the trumper's glee in complaining about a lawmaker not knowing the difference between a magazine and a clip but in all fairness it doesn't take a gunsmith to know that 30 rounds of ammunition is more than a person needs to put food on the table and protect their family and home. I suspect it's an effort, though feeble, to prevent another Las Vegas.

 

You say that as if it matters.

Good of your to recognize that bans on standard capacity magazines are worthless.

 

Simple:
They want to make it as hard a possible for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms.
The don't really care what the restrictions are, just so long as it moves them closer to that goal.

 

People also don't need vehicles that will do 200 miles per hour when the speed limit is 75, either. But they still own them. Why? Because they can. And driving is a privilege, not a right like gun ownership....

 

And no one is using an AR with a 30 round mag to hunt with. Every state limits you to 3 rounds in a shotgun and 5 rounds in a rifle. 30 round mags are used for having fun at the range and for home defense. Why should I be limited to 5 or 10 rounds in my AR when my home is being broken into by a couple of gangbangers with two 9mm pistols with 36 rounds between them?

 

What do you think banning '.50 cal' and thus potentially shotgun and muzzleloader ammo is an effort to prevent?

 

Banning .50 cal and larger won't do anything anyway when a .338 Lapua round will take your head clean off your shoulders at 1000 yards...

 

Aye. Behold, the hammer of Thor

 

Anything to get their toe in the door..... 'but it's not REALLY banning guns, it's just common sense gun control'. Eeeech...

 

Someone should tell liberals that criminals don't have any common sense and will still get their hands on a gun any way they can, therefore their "common sense" gun control will only serve to disarm the law-abiding public...

 

That's their intent, see...

 

Armored truck robberies??

 

Do you have some supporting argument for this, or is that just the only thing you can think of? I ask because I did a quick search and didn't find any armored truck robberies that were facilitated with a .50 cal. Which makes sense, because potentially being able to pierce the armor with a bullet doesn't assist one in actually getting the money out of the truck...

 

Sorry, the smiley face was intended as a clue. Oh well....

 

Does that mean you agree that this part of the bill (banning .50 cal and larger ammo) is either pointless or very carelessly executed wording?

 

A news stand.

 

Yeah, I'd go with carelessly executed wording. Personally I don't see a reason for anyone needing a .50 cal but I certainly agree with the use of shotgun slugs.

 

Do you have any thoughts as to why the gun control leadership in DC, with all their teams of lawyers, consultants, analysts and veteren legislators at their disposal can't seem to propose a gun control bill that isn't filled with this sort of vague, confusing and ineffective language?