Oso planning to go pro
Yes, cause the only people in the US who have EVER demonized legal gun ownership is just some anonymous idiot on social media
That's not at all what I said. No need for dishonesty Wags.And what difference does it make? Is your argument that it's stupid to oppose something that will save lives to spite an anonymous social media user, but it's completely reasonable to do it to spite a politician you don't like?Either way, if you do that, you're an idiot.
Its not dishonest. Lenny said don't demonize responsible gun owners and you and Frenns chose to focus on people getting butthurt over social media posts, like that was the main driver.
Go back to my reasonable earlier post you ignored to choose a different post for an easy alley oop. It doesn't have to be spite, it has to do with distrust. Distrusting a politician, much less one with pretty stark contrasting views to yours, even if you agree on minor measures, doesn't make you an idiot by any stretch.
But this is exactly how we got here, Wags. This notion that the right can't compromise because if they budge left on anything, there are more people who are still further left who will advocate for further left policies the next day. Of course they will and they should, that's the nature of what we're doing here.
It's entirely dishonest, because you know that's not what we wrote and you know we didn't claim it was the main driver. Whatever. Do you.But since you know, what is the main driver?
Your "distrust" argument is a slippery slope that's no better than opposing it out of spite."If we allow background checks, then they're coming for my guns!" is not a reasonable position. It's not even remotely based in fact. Like, how do we legislatively get from one to the other? You can't! So yeah, if your position is "I'm OK with red-flag laws, but if we allow that it'll open the door to a gun ban," then you are ignorant of how the law and legislative process works.
Knew slippery slope was coming. Its your constant refrain whenever people you disagree with want to look past a single activity to future events. As much as it can be a fallacy, it is also an easy way to parry away any future hypothetical as silly and hysterical. You literally just posted about in the LBJ thread loosely supporting Jesu's position that labor regulation could crumble under a president but citing some teen work hours. Is that not a slippery slope?
Do you truly think, if the Dems passed a number of sensible gun control measures, things like a handgun ban wouldn't be in their sights in the near future?
Given that handgun bans were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court more than a decade ago (see: District of Columbia v. Heller) ...
It’s driving me to the polls, along with Roe.
If gun control and Roe are your priorities that is your right, but I suspect voters like you will be in the minority this fall.
[/color]Your point is well taken, but the high cost of gas, groceries and just about everything else with no plan in sight to get the country on the right track is what will drive people to the polls this fall, not gun control.
Then I guess all lives don't really matter.
Full disclosure I've only read about 2/3 of the pages on this thread so not sure if this has been mentioned or not... the only way we can get some common sense laws passed is if what happened in Australia happens here. In Australia, the laws were actually shockingly spearheaded by a conservative president/prime minister and conservative government in 1995/1996. The evidence is ample that the laws worked. Just look at the data of mass shootings before and after the laws were enacted. We need some conservatives to have the balls to do the right thing despite all of the gun lobbying money. It worked in Australia and can work here if enough break party lines to do the right thing.
Only until delivery. As soon as the cord is cut, they're on their own.
It worked in Australia because they have no right to bare arms. In the US the government just can't pass legislation to ban the sale of guns as that would violate the Constitution.
Well, except the U.S. government did pass legislation to ban the sale of some guns and it withstood all legal challenges. The right to bear arms has never been considered absolute. That's why your neighbor can't own a rocket launcher or a tank.
Yeah, I forgot about it being OK for "small government" to reach into women's wombs without their consent.
Actually small government advocates would prefer no one reach into a women’s womb, especially if the purpose is to extinguish a life.
What are you talking about? I literally wrote that 1900s-style child labor isn't returning. Again, we can have a good-faith disagreement here without dishonesty.Given that handgun bans were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court more than a decade ago (see: District of Columbia v. Heller) ... No, I don't believe a handgun ban would be in their sights. And again, people who understand the law and legislative process already know this.The gun lobby preys upon the uninformed with these exact kind of fear tactics to prevent any action, even on measures the large majority of gun owners support.
...but the law proposed in Congress if passed would essentially ban many guns. If you make it illegal to have a gun with a magazine of more than ten rounds you made it illegal to purchase that gun. The law also wants to raise the age to 21 to purchase a rifle. Even the 9th circuit just ruled that a minimum age of 21 to purchase a rifle (AR-15) is unconstitutional. So what is in that proposed law is not fear mongering but of legitimate concerns. I'll concede the courts decisions on many of these laws are inconsistent and vary from state to state and circuit court district to circuit court district.https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-11/federal-court-rules-california-ban-on-gun-sales-to-people-under-21-unconstitutional
No, you've just regulated the size of the magazine for that particular firearm, not banned the weapon.