Please have all Democrats run on this platform. Talk to them. You'll find it's no start at all, because none of them will run on this platform.
gun banners claim that we need more laws because the police cannot enforce the ones on the books that actually can be used to attack actually harmful activities. So gun banners want to turn millions of people who have never harmed anyone into well armed and pissed off criminals in order to stop real criminals. Can anyone tell me why this tactic is not absolutely nutso?
It’s possible they know the days of adequate numbers of slaves acquired through the war on drugs are numbered and they are setting up a new slave pipeline. We messed up when we didn’t abolish slavery.
screwing over honest gun owners is the main goal of most avid anti gun activists. they only pretend its about crime control
I also use the same lead ball for slingshot ammunition. In your grand little plan here would you make slingshots illegal too? How about lead fishing weights that you can stuff a shotgun or a muzzleloader with? You really haven't put much thought into this have you? Here is something else I read that you might be interested in..... A real man doesn't sleep with 99 women.... A real man would fight 99 men for one woman
Now now turtle dude.... You're not playing fair by the rules of this game You are bringing logic and ration and common sense into this.... Shame on you sir that has no place here!!!
You might make a better one than the faux-Pope they have in Rome right now. Just about anyone would....
You know very little about ammo. Unfortunately, humans are fragile and the lightest projectile with the lightest charge is still deadly. Of course, your proposal will give killers an advantage over law abiding citizens. If someone is willing to risk the penalty for committing murder, why wouldn't they risk for possessing illegal ammo?
The law that those using the popular terminology are trying to pass certainly does include some shotguns and some pistols, and in various states is being expanded beyond that. The 1994 law included AR-15s, which had never been used in a mass shooting and wouldn't be used in one by a civilian for another 18 years. Ohio democrats introduced a law in the 2017 session, SB.260, which would have designated any semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a "large capacity magazine" as an "assault weapon", which would have meant that firearms like the Glock 43, factory capacity of six rounds would be banned as an "assault weapon" because someone makes an 11 round magazine for it. "Assault weapon" is a completely arbitrary and capricious term, and all it takes for any class of firearms to become an "assault weapon" is to be listed on the paper when a future bill is signed. There's not a single class of firearms listed in any "assault weapon" law or bill that doesn't meet the criteria established in Heller and Caetano for protection by the Second Amendment as a bearable arm in common use for lawful purposes.
You are attempting to fool PF members about your knowledge of physics and firearms. I’m simply pointing out your errors, which is very easy to do. From Wikipedia: You referenced bans. Here is text from Feinstein’s assault weapon ban bill from 2013. This definition in the Feinstein bill has been the model for subsequent bills and discussion since. So if you invoke an assault weapons ban you are including shotguns. No you clearly posted this: The definition of assault weapons includes shotguns and you did not exclude them. You had the option of using the term assault rifle in place of assault weapon and CHOSE not to. Again you believe me posting facts is foolish but you posting incorrect information is acceptable. Let’s let the readers determine who is the fool. I am a scientist. But it doesn’t matter. What matters is you have NEVER been able to post evidence I’m incorrect. My posts have always been supported by peer reviewed research. Yours are simply your unsubstantiated opinions that conflict with all available evidence produced through the scientific method. I have never made a crackpot claim. Ever. And if I had you would be able to post evidence it was. And you haven’t. Just as hominem and other fallacy including appeal to the stone fallacy. I did not take your post out of context. You CHOSE the term assault weapon when you had the option of using the term assault rifle. You claimed shotguns are better self defense weapons, not me. Sure, we believe you! LOL I’m not attacking. As usual I’m just pointing out you have NO knowledge of the subject matter. I like when you make appeal to authority arguments. The more fallacies you post the less credibility you have. And I don’t like authoritarians to have credibility. Now, if you want to move the goalposts, tell us what calibers of rifle ammo are “the problem” and tell us the weight of those cartridges. Then compare that weight to other rifles cartridges. Go ahead Mr. physicist. Shine!
As usual my arguments are based on verifiable data and evidence. Yours are unsubstantiated opinions. I suggest you not post on subjects you have no knowledge of. It will save you much embarrassment on PF. Or, here is a novel idea. Support your posts with data and evidence. Don’t rely solely on unsubstantiated opinions and fallacy. We asked you to substantiate your claims about cartridges. You have not done so. The ball was in your court and you rage quit instead of playing ball.
Well, looking at the proposal some libs have about a good way to control gun violence says that we should forbid weapons that can hold more than x-number of rounds -- and that's just flat-out STOOPID. Think: the gov't. can say, "No handgun can hold more than x-number of rounds", so to get around that, all you need are more ammo magazines that hold x-number of rounds! Besides, you can bet that 'criminals and crazies' would continue to have access to millions of older weapons and all kinds of magazines and drums that allow vastly larger numbers of loads to be toted around on their next rampage! WHY? Well, uh, because they're 'criminals and crazies'.... . OK for criminals, but not YOU?
