It's very simple. There will be a mass shooting event sooner than later.
It will be followed by a massive leak wherein everyone who can be traced to have owned a firearm in any capacity will be made public.
This mass shooting event will be blamed on the "alt right."
Thus the connotation will be made between gun ownership and "white nationalism / supremacy" where it is assumed if you're in one category you are, by definition, in the other. If you don't give up your guns then logically you are just like the terrorists who invaded the Capitol.
Originally Posted by banyon:
No, do not let me stop you. Continue to run around with your hair on fire about things that will not happen, it's highly entertaining.
My hair isn't on fire or even smoking. I just think its laughably stupid to dismiss the idea of what the goal is. [Reply]
Originally Posted by banyon:
i would agree those are some of the most restrictive gun laws any state has.
I do not favor them, and do not see the political likelihood of the country at large emulating those state laws.
Here’s what’s weird. I can go purchase any long gun or ammo I want with my firearm purchaser ID and a quick (15 minute background check) But every time I want to buy a handgun I have to wait two months for a handgun permit from my towns police department (4 copies of the permit, one to me, one to gun store or dealer and one to local police and one to state police) they’re more strict with handguns than they are with long guns. [Reply]
Originally Posted by banyon:
Goal of who? So far, it's just a bunch of innuendo that leftists are coming to take your guns. When i asked for specifics, they aren't there.
:-) you don't even know what the platform is of the people you voted for. I shouldn't be surprised. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 2112:
Here’s what’s weird. I can go purchase any long gun or ammo I want with my firearm purchaser ID and a quick (15 minute background check) But every time I want to buy a handgun I have to wait two months for a handgun permit from my towns police department (4 copies of the permit, one to me, one to gun store or dealer and one to local police and one to state police) they’re more strict with handguns than they are with long guns.
I agree it sounds like a dumb distinction they are making. If I recall, there was some hand wringing in the 90s about handguns being more concealable, more favored by criminal gangs, etc. I would guess the law started there. [Reply]
Originally Posted by banyon:
Go ahead jenious, you provide those specifics. Should be good for a laugh.
Again you might be the dumbest attorney on the planet. Then again you voted for one of the dumbest ****ing politicians on the planet as shown in bold below. Apparently he doesn't realize its illegal to hunt children.
Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons.
Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.
Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.
Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Again you might be the dumbest attorney on the planet. Then again you voted for one of the dumbest ****ing politicians on the planet as shown in bold below. Apparently he doesn't realize its illegal to hunt children.
Honestly the only reason I have guns is to protect myself from others with guns.
If EVERYONE had their guns removed via Fahrenheit 451, I would gladly give mine up and just pack a Katana and some throwing stars because I shouldn't need to worry about anyone entering my home with a gun.
That said, I think it's far fetched to remove guns and ammo from society. There is WAYYYY too many of them. [Reply]
Originally Posted by banyon:
I like direct answers and people don’t seem to want to give them.
You've asked 4-5 times about the "10-rd magazine" law, as if you've never heard of it. As if it's not the law in several blue states. And yet you say you're a lawyer that owns guns? Odd, considering every attorney that I know, whether for or against gun control, is aware of these laws.
That's just an attempt to distract from the overarching conversation. The law does exist, and in several places, that is a fact. Your alleged ignorance of these laws notwithstanding.
You attempt to act as if gun control laws in those same states haven't expanded over the last 25+ years, particularly in states such as CA/NY/NJ/IL, or that the goal isn't to further restrict the public's access to guns, as if the Left is satisfied with the level of gun control in the U.S.
Based on recent history this is, at best, unconscious cognitive dissonance. More likely it's willful.
But just to be absolutely fair, I'll list the states that have magazine restrictions:
Originally Posted by :
"In 2013, New York State adopted a seven-round limit, and although 10 round magazines were allowed to be bought, sold and possessed, magazines could not be loaded with more than seven rounds. A federal judge subsequently ruled that New York’s seven round limit was unconstitutional.
In 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown signed S.1446, which severely restricts standard capacity magazines. Under this law, anyone possessing a magazine with a carrying capacity larger than 10 rounds, no matter the caliber, was required to dispose of the magazine by July 1, 2017.
California subsequently lifted their high-capacity magazine ban after a judge ruled it unconstitutional. The lifting of this ban instigated a temporary buying frenzy of standard capacity magazines across California before additional court intervention. While residents are allowed to own the high capacity magazines, they are still restricted in the fact that their firearms cannot hold more than 10 rounds.
The following states have implemented capacity-based magazine bans: California – 10 rounds; Colorado – 15 rounds; Connecticut – 10 rounds; Hawaii – 10 rounds; Maryland – 10 rounds; Massachusetts – 10 rounds; New York – 10 rounds; and most recently (2018) New Jersey – 10 rounds (previously restricted to 15 rounds), and Vermont – 10 rounds for rifles and 15 rounds for handguns (previously no restrictions).
The following cities, among others, also have capacity-based bans in place: San Francisco, CA – 10 rounds; Los Angeles, CA – 10 rounds; Oakland, CA - 10 rounds; Denver, CO – 15 rounds; Washington, DC – 10 rounds; Aurora, IL – 15 rounds; Chicago, IL – 12 rounds; Franklin Park, IL – 16 rounds; Oak Park, IL – 10 rounds; Riverdale, IL – 35 rounds"
Then look at the POTUS plan:
[URL="https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/18/joe-biden-on-gun-violence-mh-orig.cnn"]https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/18/joe-biden-on-gun-violence-mh-orig.cnn[/URL
Which was probably taken directly from the 'plans' of every CA/NY/NJ/IL Dem that was recently voted into in office.
It's hilarious that gun control advocates can even say with a straight face that they aren't trying to ban guns, or take guns from law-abiding Americans at this point. You've been trying to circumvent the 2nd A for decades.
Just admit the truth of your goals and what you are.
We might start believing you on some level at that point. Until then, your refusal to just tell the truth about your goals make the entire conversation worthless. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
You've asked 4-5 times about the "10-rd magazine" law, as if you've never heard of it. As if it's not the law in several blue states. And yet you say you're a lawyer that owns guns? Odd, considering every attorney that I know, whether for or against gun control, is aware of these laws.
That's just an attempt to distract from the overarching conversation. The law does exist, and in several places, that is a fact. Your alleged ignorance of these laws notwithstanding.
You attempt to act as if gun control laws in those same states haven't expanded over the last 25+ years, particularly in states such as CA/NY/NJ/IL, or that the goal isn't to further restrict the public's access to guns, as if the Left is satisfied with the level of gun control in the U.S.
Based on recent history this is, at best, unconscious cognitive dissonance. More likely it's willful.
But just to be absolutely fair, I'll list the states that have magazine restrictions:
No. What I asked was about Biden having a specific policy about 10 round clips because that's what the poster claimed. Then people started bringing up state laws in other posts, which i didn't dispute the existence of, but was not something I questioned or agreed with. The thread *again* was about the Federal government coming to take your guns, not about the perceived fairness of states who have more restrictive laws in place.
if the question in the thread had been, "Will New York or California enact some more severe gun restrictions?" I probably would have answered "I don't know, but seems likely based on their politics".
Originally Posted by :
Then look at the POTUS plan:
[URL="https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/18/joe-biden-on-gun-violence-mh-orig.cnn"]https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/18/joe-biden-on-gun-violence-mh-orig.cnn[/URL
Which was probably taken directly from the 'plans' of every CA/NY/NJ/IL Dem that was recently voted into in office.
It's hilarious that gun control advocates can even say with a straight face that they aren't trying to ban guns, or take guns from law-abiding Americans at this point. You've been trying to circumvent the 2nd A for decades.
Just admit the truth of your goals and what you are.
We might start believing you on some level at that point. Until then, your refusal to just tell the truth about your goals make the entire conversation worthless.
I can't watch your video right now so I'll wait on replying to this half of your post. But I have always been pro 2A, with regulations that make sense, that usually 80-90% of the public agree with. [Reply]
