One Reason Why Republicans Can't Seem To Win Elections Lately

[Stephanie]

School children and theater patrons are being wiped out by the dozens by nut cases using assault weapons. Sen. Feinstein has proposed legislation in California designed to ban the possession of the type of assault weapons used in the recent mass killings. A front page article in the L.A. Times several days ago noted that the Republican legislators in California are boycotting the presentation of the proposed legislation. Not one Republican will be in attendance.

And Republicans are wondering why they can't seem to win elections of late.

3500 children killed EVERY DAY from abortion..don't see you bleeding hearts all up in arms over that and calling for banning them..

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Doing OK in the governorships. Can't beat a 47 percent head start. That will change when people wise up.

North Carolina is Republican now as well.

 

[George Costanza]

Now, how about that question that none of you gun grabbers are willing to address?

That question being - why take guns away from the good guys when the bad guys are going to have them regardless?

I don't know. Look - I am not an expert on gun control. I don't pretend to be. Personally, I own three shotguns and two rifles. If someone tried to take them away from me, I would be upset because I know I would never use them for an illegal purpose. I used to hunt, but don't any more. As such, I really don't have any use for the guns and would probably turn them in if forced to do so. Home protection? Sure - if my back was to the wall and a bad guy was in the house with a gun and evil intent, I would shoot him if I had to. But the chances of that happening are slim. Besides, I don't expect that anyone is ever going to take my shotguns and rifles away from me anyway, so discussion on that one is pretty moot.

When it comes to assault weapons - I see that differently. In the OP, I cited an article about Sen. Feinstein, who is seeking to put restrictions on certain assault weapons. If the weapons she seeks to regulate are not the type of weapons that were used in the recent mass killings, then sue me - I made a mistake. Regardless, whether we are talking about the recent mass killings or assault weapons in general: they all fire lots of rounds in a very short time, and are all capable of wiping a lot of folks out in a very short time. These types of weapons should be regulated. I think they should be outright banned. Political parties that oppose such efforts, do so at their peril.

To your question, however: Yes, if we take assault weapons away from good guys, bad guys are going to continue to have them. If we take handguns (or any other type of guns) away from good guys, bad guys will continue to have them. So what? A society where everyone (good guys and bad guys) carries a gun, is potentially much more dangerous for the good guys, than one where only the bad guys have the guns. Why? Because there will be a lot more violence between good guys than ever before, while the bad guys will continue to do pretty much what they always did.

Take your typical road rage incident. It's one thing if the drivers involved are not armed. Then, they just pull over and duke it out. Put handguns under each driver's seat, have a true road rage incident, and see what happens. Dad gets drunk on Saturday night and attacks Mom in a rage. No gun in the house, and people just go to the hospital and jail. Gun in the house: people go to the morgue.

So the answer to the "bad guys will still have guns while the good guys will have none" argument is, yes, that's probably true. But when all is said and done, our society would be much worse off where all citizens are armed, than when gun control is in effect.

 

[ZimothyTahn]

itt: gun zealots value their firearms more than the lives of children.

of course, if those children were still in utero, then we'd be having a whole different conversation.

here's a question for you "pro-lifers" - if an abortion were performed with a gun, would you care?

 

[Stephanie]

itt: gun zealots value their firearms more than the lives of children.

of course, if those children were still in utero, then we'd be having a whole different conversation.

here's a question for you "pro-lifers" - if an abortion were performed with a gun, would you care?

whoa

 

[ZimothyTahn]

School children and theater patrons are being wiped out by the dozens by nut cases using assault weapons. Sen. Feinstein has proposed legislation in California designed to ban the possession of the type of assault weapons used in the recent mass killings. A front page article in the L.A. Times several days ago noted that the Republican legislators in California are boycotting the presentation of the proposed legislation. Not one Republican will be in attendance.

And Republicans are wondering why they can't seem to win elections of late.

3500 children killed EVERY DAY from abortion..don't see you bleeding hearts all up in arms over that and calling for banning them..

they're not children. by and large they're zygotes. zygotes don't go to college. zygotes don't produce anything of value. just because you choose to believe in fantasy story bullshit like it's real doesn't mean the rest of society has to.

 

[Stephanie]

School children and theater patrons are being wiped out by the dozens by nut cases using assault weapons. Sen. Feinstein has proposed legislation in California designed to ban the possession of the type of assault weapons used in the recent mass killings. A front page article in the L.A. Times several days ago noted that the Republican legislators in California are boycotting the presentation of the proposed legislation. Not one Republican will be in attendance.

And Republicans are wondering why they can't seem to win elections of late.

3500 children killed EVERY DAY from abortion..don't see you bleeding hearts all up in arms over that and calling for banning them..

they're not children. by and large they're zygotes. zygotes don't go to college. zygotes don't produce anything of value. just because you choose to believe in fantasy story bullshit like it's real doesn't mean the rest of society has to.

call them whatever the hell makes you sleep better at night
they are a human being CREATED

 

[peach174]

Now, how about that question that none of you gun grabbers are willing to address?

That question being - why take guns away from the good guys when the bad guys are going to have them regardless?

I don't know. Look - I am not an expert on gun control. I don't pretend to be. Personally, I own three shotguns and two rifles. If someone tried to take them away from me, I would be upset because I know I would never use them for an illegal purpose. I used to hunt, but don't any more. As such, I really don't have any use for the guns and would probably turn them in if forced to do so. Home protection? Sure - if my back was to the wall and a bad guy was in the house with a gun and evil intent, I would shoot him if I had to. But the chances of that happening are slim. Besides, I don't expect that anyone is ever going to take my shotguns and rifles away from me anyway, so discussion on that one is pretty moot.

When it comes to assault weapons - I see that differently. In the OP, I cited an article about Sen. Feinstein, who is seeking to put restrictions on certain assault weapons. If the weapons she seeks to regulate are not the type of weapons that were used in the recent mass killings, then sue me - I made a mistake. Regardless, whether we are talking about the recent mass killings or assault weapons in general: they all fire lots of rounds in a very short time, and are all capable of wiping a lot of folks out in a very short time. These types of weapons should be regulated. I think they should be outright banned. Political parties that oppose such efforts, do so at their peril.

To your question, however: Yes, if we take assault weapons away from good guys, bad guys are going to continue to have them. If we take handguns (or any other type of guns) away from good guys, bad guys will continue to have them. So what? A society where everyone (good guys and bad guys) carries a gun, is potentially much more dangerous for the good guys, than one where only the bad guys have the guns. Why? Because there will be a lot more violence between good guys than ever before, while the bad guys will continue to do pretty much what they always did.

Take your typical road rage incident. It's one thing if the drivers involved are not armed. Then, they just pull over and duke it out. Put handguns under each driver's seat, have a true road rage incident, and see what happens. Dad gets drunk on Saturday night and attacks Mom in a rage. No gun in the house, and people just go to the hospital and jail. Gun in the house: people go to the morgue.

So the answer to the "bad guys will still have guns while the good guys will have none" argument is, yes, that's probably true. But when all is said and done, our society would be much worse off where all citizens are armed, than when gun control is in effect.

Do you realize that in Feinsteins bill there are 11 or 12 types shotguns listed as being banned?

 

[peach174]

Now, how about that question that none of you gun grabbers are willing to address?

That question being - why take guns away from the good guys when the bad guys are going to have them regardless?

I don't know. Look - I am not an expert on gun control. I don't pretend to be. Personally, I own three shotguns and two rifles. If someone tried to take them away from me, I would be upset because I know I would never use them for an illegal purpose. I used to hunt, but don't any more. As such, I really don't have any use for the guns and would probably turn them in if forced to do so. Home protection? Sure - if my back was to the wall and a bad guy was in the house with a gun and evil intent, I would shoot him if I had to. But the chances of that happening are slim. Besides, I don't expect that anyone is ever going to take my shotguns and rifles away from me anyway, so discussion on that one is pretty moot.

When it comes to assault weapons - I see that differently. In the OP, I cited an article about Sen. Feinstein, who is seeking to put restrictions on certain assault weapons. If the weapons she seeks to regulate are not the type of weapons that were used in the recent mass killings, then sue me - I made a mistake. Regardless, whether we are talking about the recent mass killings or assault weapons in general: they all fire lots of rounds in a very short time, and are all capable of wiping a lot of folks out in a very short time. These types of weapons should be regulated. I think they should be outright banned. Political parties that oppose such efforts, do so at their peril.

To your question, however: Yes, if we take assault weapons away from good guys, bad guys are going to continue to have them. If we take handguns (or any other type of guns) away from good guys, bad guys will continue to have them. So what? A society where everyone (good guys and bad guys) carries a gun, is potentially much more dangerous for the good guys, than one where only the bad guys have the guns. Why? Because there will be a lot more violence between good guys than ever before, while the bad guys will continue to do pretty much what they always did.

Take your typical road rage incident. It's one thing if the drivers involved are not armed. Then, they just pull over and duke it out. Put handguns under each driver's seat, have a true road rage incident, and see what happens. Dad gets drunk on Saturday night and attacks Mom in a rage. No gun in the house, and people just go to the hospital and jail. Gun in the house: people go to the morgue.

So the answer to the "bad guys will still have guns while the good guys will have none" argument is, yes, that's probably true. But when all is said and done, our society would be much worse off where all citizens are armed, than when gun control is in effect.

The Australians disagree with you.
Crime up Down Under

FBI disagrees with you.
Gun crime down.
FBI Stats: Gun Sales Up, Violent Crime Down

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Why is it that you think it should be paid for by the Federal Government and States?

Mental health care is very, very expensive. Either you want these "nutcases" to get help or you don't. You seem to assume that all nutcases are either wealthy, working and obtaining health insurance that way (assuming their insurance covers mental health care - many plans don't) or destitute and on medicaid (also very limited in coverage). What about the working poor? They cannot afford any insurance, especially cadillac insurance that also includes mental health coverage. If you don't identify these "nutcases" in the first place (aka getting them initial treatment and into the system), then how on earth will a background check ever work? Either communities help these people or they fall through the cracks.

 

[Stephanie]

Why is it that you think it should be paid for by the Federal Government and States?

Mental health care is very, very expensive. Either you want these "nutcases" to get help or you don't. You seem to assume that all nutcases are either wealthy, working and obtaining health care that way or destitute. What about the working poor? They cannot afford any insurance, especially cadillac insurance that also includes mental health coverage. If you don't identify these "nutcases" in the first place (aka getting them initial treatment and into the system), then how on earth will a background check ever work? Either communities help these people or they fall through the cracks.

what? are you going to FORCE these people into THE SYSTEM?
Already been done and the ACLU fought to have that done away with

 

[kwc57]

Now, how about that question that none of you gun grabbers are willing to address?

That question being - why take guns away from the good guys when the bad guys are going to have them regardless?

I don't know. Look - I am not an expert on gun control. I don't pretend to be. Personally, I own three shotguns and two rifles. If someone tried to take them away from me, I would be upset because I know I would never use them for an illegal purpose. I used to hunt, but don't any more. As such, I really don't have any use for the guns and would probably turn them in if forced to do so. Home protection? Sure - if my back was to the wall and a bad guy was in the house with a gun and evil intent, I would shoot him if I had to. But the chances of that happening are slim. Besides, I don't expect that anyone is ever going to take my shotguns and rifles away from me anyway, so discussion on that one is pretty moot.

When it comes to assault weapons - I see that differently. In the OP, I cited an article about Sen. Feinstein, who is seeking to put restrictions on certain assault weapons. If the weapons she seeks to regulate are not the type of weapons that were used in the recent mass killings, then sue me - I made a mistake. Regardless, whether we are talking about the recent mass killings or assault weapons in general: they all fire lots of rounds in a very short time, and are all capable of wiping a lot of folks out in a very short time. These types of weapons should be regulated. I think they should be outright banned. Political parties that oppose such efforts, do so at their peril.

To your question, however: Yes, if we take assault weapons away from good guys, bad guys are going to continue to have them. If we take handguns (or any other type of guns) away from good guys, bad guys will continue to have them. So what? A society where everyone (good guys and bad guys) carries a gun, is potentially much more dangerous for the good guys, than one where only the bad guys have the guns. Why? Because there will be a lot more violence between good guys than ever before, while the bad guys will continue to do pretty much what they always did.

Take your typical road rage incident. It's one thing if the drivers involved are not armed. Then, they just pull over and duke it out. Put handguns under each driver's seat, have a true road rage incident, and see what happens. Dad gets drunk on Saturday night and attacks Mom in a rage. No gun in the house, and people just go to the hospital and jail. Gun in the house: people go to the morgue.

So the answer to the "bad guys will still have guns while the good guys will have none" argument is, yes, that's probably true. But when all is said and done, our society would be much worse off where all citizens are armed, than when gun control is in effect.

But George, what you are being told is an assualt weapon by politicians and the media are no such thing. A pencil in angry hands can be an "assault" weapon. The guns that Feinstein, Obama and the media want to ban are not assualt weapons. They may look like military grade weapons, but they are not. It's all cosmetic. They are treating something that isn't even a symptom and ignoring the disease which is mental illness.

And in response to your last sentence, check out the murder rate between my home city of Oklahoma City which recently passed open carry against Chicago which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Criminals have a heyday when they know nothing will stop them. They simply don't play by the rules.

I'll post this picture again as an example.

 

[LibertyLemming]

School children and theater patrons are being wiped out by the dozens by nut cases using assault weapons. Sen. Feinstein has proposed legislation in California designed to ban the possession of the type of assault weapons used in the recent mass killings. A front page article in the L.A. Times several days ago noted that the Republican legislators in California are boycotting the presentation of the proposed legislation. Not one Republican will be in attendance.

And Republicans are wondering why they can't seem to win elections of late.

You do of course realize that Connecticut has and did have an assault weapon ban in place when Sandy Hook took place, right? You also realize that the Columbine tragedy took place while the national assault weapon ban was in place, right?

There is no evidence that weapons bans reduce crime/violence. The country has a morality program and it might have something to do with government education spouting out the glories of American military domination of the world to every generation. Nobody mentions the millions of innocent casualties.

 

[ZimothyTahn]

3500 children killed EVERY DAY from abortion..don't see you bleeding hearts all up in arms over that and calling for banning them..

they're not children. by and large they're zygotes. zygotes don't go to college. zygotes don't produce anything of value. just because you choose to believe in fantasy story bullshit like it's real doesn't mean the rest of society has to.

call them whatever the hell makes you sleep better at night
they are a human being CREATED

honey bitch-boo, let me tell you something. you will never shame me into changing my views on abortion. i applaud women who can see that their life situation isn't a good one to bring a child into. save your breath on adoption. we have too many kids here already without good homes. i ENCOURAGE abortion and if my daughter were to become pregnant before she was ready to take on the responsibility of parenthood, i would beg her to get an abortion, as long as the baby weren't viable, and even then I probably have another two or three week window where i wouldn't feel terrible.

i have a spine, is what i'm saying. so all your cries of murder fall on deaf ears...as lies and bullshit should.

 

[Stephanie]

they're not children. by and large they're zygotes. zygotes don't go to college. zygotes don't produce anything of value. just because you choose to believe in fantasy story bullshit like it's real doesn't mean the rest of society has to.

call them whatever the hell makes you sleep better at night
they are a human being CREATED

honey bitch-boo, let me tell you something. you will never shame me into changing my views on abortion. i applaud women who can see that their life situation isn't a good one to bring a child into. save your breath on adoption. we have too many kids here already without good homes. i ENCOURAGE abortion and if my daughter were to become pregnant before she was ready to take on the responsibility of parenthood, i would beg her to get an abortion, as long as the baby weren't viable, and even then I probably have another two or three week window where i wouldn't feel terrible.

i have a spine, is what i'm saying. so all your cries of murder fall on deaf ears...as lies and bullshit should.

who the fuck cares who or what you applaud...you approve of MURDER of children, then keep your nose out of gun control
now move along

 

[eflatminor]

Yes, if we take assault weapons away from good guys, bad guys are going to continue to have them. If we take handguns (or any other type of guns) away from good guys, bad guys will continue to have them. So what?

So what? You've put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing the bad guys with whatever firearm/magazine they like. That's what.

A society where everyone (good guys and bad guys) carries a gun, is potentially much more dangerous for the good guys, than one where only the bad guys have the guns. Why? Because there will be a lot more violence between good guys than ever before, while the bad guys will continue to do pretty much what they always did.

Ah, but there will NOT be more violence. Years of statistics prove that. As more firearms came into public hands and as exponentially more CCW permits were issued in states across the country, violent crime DECLINED. Your fears are unfounded in reality. Try reading Lott's groundbreaking book "More guns, less crime" for all the evidence any rational person could need.

But even in the absence of such evidence, why in the hell would you be okay with good guys being put into a position where they are unable to defend themselves? You understand the bad guys will still have the firearms but it's as though you're fine with law abiding citizens unable to adequately defend themselves. I find that incredibly odd.

Take your typical road rage incident. It's one thing if the drivers involved are not armed. Then, they just pull over and duke it out. Put handguns under each driver's seat, have a true road rage incident, and see what happens. Dad gets drunk on Saturday night and attacks Mom in a rage. No gun in the house, and people just go to the hospital and jail. Gun in the house: people go to the morgue.

You are assuming something bad will happen with armed citizens when all the evidence proves that is not the case. Again, after states saw exponential increases in CCW permits and the number of legally owned firearms, crime DECREASED.

To put it another way, the guy with a CCW permit driving down the road is likely to be the most polite and courteous driver on the road. We go out of our way to avoid petty incidents of road rage and domestic disputes. That's the reality of armed society...it's a polite (and safe) society.

Another way to look at it is this: For all the firearm in America (and we have LOTS of them), we don't even break into the top 100 countries when it comes to murder rates. More guns does not mean more crime. It means less.

So the answer to the "bad guys will still have guns while the good guys will have none" argument is, yes, that's probably true. But when all is said and done, our society would be much worse off where all citizens are armed, than when gun control is in effect.

History does not support that conclusion. Crime in England and Australia skyrocketed AFTER they virtually banned civilian gun ownership, and this during a time period in which other western nations were seeing a decrease in crime rates. While here in America, states that lessen gun control with more CCW permits saw crime plummet.

What you think might happen is not supported by any empirical evidence. We've had enough "feel good" legislation that only makes the problem worse.

 

[George Costanza]

Now, how about that question that none of you gun grabbers are willing to address?

That question being - why take guns away from the good guys when the bad guys are going to have them regardless?

I don't know. Look - I am not an expert on gun control. I don't pretend to be. Personally, I own three shotguns and two rifles. If someone tried to take them away from me, I would be upset because I know I would never use them for an illegal purpose. I used to hunt, but don't any more. As such, I really don't have any use for the guns and would probably turn them in if forced to do so. Home protection? Sure - if my back was to the wall and a bad guy was in the house with a gun and evil intent, I would shoot him if I had to. But the chances of that happening are slim. Besides, I don't expect that anyone is ever going to take my shotguns and rifles away from me anyway, so discussion on that one is pretty moot.

When it comes to assault weapons - I see that differently. In the OP, I cited an article about Sen. Feinstein, who is seeking to put restrictions on certain assault weapons. If the weapons she seeks to regulate are not the type of weapons that were used in the recent mass killings, then sue me - I made a mistake. Regardless, whether we are talking about the recent mass killings or assault weapons in general: they all fire lots of rounds in a very short time, and are all capable of wiping a lot of folks out in a very short time. These types of weapons should be regulated. I think they should be outright banned. Political parties that oppose such efforts, do so at their peril.

To your question, however: Yes, if we take assault weapons away from good guys, bad guys are going to continue to have them. If we take handguns (or any other type of guns) away from good guys, bad guys will continue to have them. So what? A society where everyone (good guys and bad guys) carries a gun, is potentially much more dangerous for the good guys, than one where only the bad guys have the guns. Why? Because there will be a lot more violence between good guys than ever before, while the bad guys will continue to do pretty much what they always did.

Take your typical road rage incident. It's one thing if the drivers involved are not armed. Then, they just pull over and duke it out. Put handguns under each driver's seat, have a true road rage incident, and see what happens. Dad gets drunk on Saturday night and attacks Mom in a rage. No gun in the house, and people just go to the hospital and jail. Gun in the house: people go to the morgue.

So the answer to the "bad guys will still have guns while the good guys will have none" argument is, yes, that's probably true. But when all is said and done, our society would be much worse off where all citizens are armed, than when gun control is in effect.

But George, what you are being told is an assualt weapon by politicians and the media are no such thing. A pencil in angry hands can be an "assault" weapon. The guns that Feinstein, Obama and the media want to ban are not assualt weapons. They may look like military grade weapons, but they are not. It's all cosmetic. They are treating something that isn't even a symptom and ignoring the disease which is mental illness.

And in response to your last sentence, check out the murder rate between my home city of Oklahoma City which recently passed open carry against Chicago which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Criminals have a heyday when they know nothing will stop them. They simply don't play by the rules.

I'll post this picture again as an example.

View attachment 24091

I appreciate this. But parsing words over whether a rapid-fire weapon is an assault weapon or some other type of weapon is counter-productive, in my opinion. It seems to me that there is little to no justification for the existence of any type of rapid-fire weapon outisde of military combat. As such, the complete elimination of same insofar as the general public is concerned, can only have the effect of reducing the chances of incidents such as those of recent months.

 

[George Costanza]

School children and theater patrons are being wiped out by the dozens by nut cases using assault weapons. Sen. Feinstein has proposed legislation in California designed to ban the possession of the type of assault weapons used in the recent mass killings. A front page article in the L.A. Times several days ago noted that the Republican legislators in California are boycotting the presentation of the proposed legislation. Not one Republican will be in attendance.

And Republicans are wondering why they can't seem to win elections of late.

3500 children killed EVERY DAY from abortion..don't see you bleeding hearts all up in arms over that and calling for banning them..

That's right - and when the Democratic Party stands up for the right to choose, it knows that it will be alienating a large segment of the voting public - those who think abortion should be made illegal.

It's all part of the push and shove of our political system.

My point with this thread is, that today's Republican Party is just adopting way too many idealogical positions that run contrary to reality when it comes to what the public will or will not stand for - many more than is today's Democratic Party. The Republican stance on gun control is but one of these areas. That's why, until they get their heads out of their asses, Republicans are going to continue to take second in presidential elections.

 

[eflatminor]

That question being - why take guns away from the good guys when the bad guys are going to have them regardless?

I don't know. Look - I am not an expert on gun control. I don't pretend to be. Personally, I own three shotguns and two rifles. If someone tried to take them away from me, I would be upset because I know I would never use them for an illegal purpose. I used to hunt, but don't any more. As such, I really don't have any use for the guns and would probably turn them in if forced to do so. Home protection? Sure - if my back was to the wall and a bad guy was in the house with a gun and evil intent, I would shoot him if I had to. But the chances of that happening are slim. Besides, I don't expect that anyone is ever going to take my shotguns and rifles away from me anyway, so discussion on that one is pretty moot.

When it comes to assault weapons - I see that differently. In the OP, I cited an article about Sen. Feinstein, who is seeking to put restrictions on certain assault weapons. If the weapons she seeks to regulate are not the type of weapons that were used in the recent mass killings, then sue me - I made a mistake. Regardless, whether we are talking about the recent mass killings or assault weapons in general: they all fire lots of rounds in a very short time, and are all capable of wiping a lot of folks out in a very short time. These types of weapons should be regulated. I think they should be outright banned. Political parties that oppose such efforts, do so at their peril.

To your question, however: Yes, if we take assault weapons away from good guys, bad guys are going to continue to have them. If we take handguns (or any other type of guns) away from good guys, bad guys will continue to have them. So what? A society where everyone (good guys and bad guys) carries a gun, is potentially much more dangerous for the good guys, than one where only the bad guys have the guns. Why? Because there will be a lot more violence between good guys than ever before, while the bad guys will continue to do pretty much what they always did.

Take your typical road rage incident. It's one thing if the drivers involved are not armed. Then, they just pull over and duke it out. Put handguns under each driver's seat, have a true road rage incident, and see what happens. Dad gets drunk on Saturday night and attacks Mom in a rage. No gun in the house, and people just go to the hospital and jail. Gun in the house: people go to the morgue.

So the answer to the "bad guys will still have guns while the good guys will have none" argument is, yes, that's probably true. But when all is said and done, our society would be much worse off where all citizens are armed, than when gun control is in effect.

But George, what you are being told is an assualt weapon by politicians and the media are no such thing. A pencil in angry hands can be an "assault" weapon. The guns that Feinstein, Obama and the media want to ban are not assualt weapons. They may look like military grade weapons, but they are not. It's all cosmetic. They are treating something that isn't even a symptom and ignoring the disease which is mental illness.

And in response to your last sentence, check out the murder rate between my home city of Oklahoma City which recently passed open carry against Chicago which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Criminals have a heyday when they know nothing will stop them. They simply don't play by the rules.

I'll post this picture again as an example.

View attachment 24091

I appreciate this. But parsing words over whether a rapid-fire weapon is an assault weapon or some other type of weapon is counter-productive, in my opinion. It seems to me that there is little to no justification for the existence of any type of rapid-fire weapon outisde of military combat.

If we were to ban every type of 'rapid-fire' weapon, we'd have to outlaw every pistol, revolver, multi-barrel shotgun, and semi automatic firearm, all of which have been around for over 100 years. And all of which have the same functional result: one pull of the trigger, one round fired...as fast as you can pull the trigger.

That would leave law abiding citizens with bolt action rifles and single barrel shotguns only...while the bad guys have whatever they like. That makes ZERO sense, not to mention highly unconstitutional.

As such, the complete elimination of same insofar as the general public is concerned, can only have the effect of reducing the chances of incidents such as those of recent months.

There is no historical evidence to support that statement. None.

 

[LibertyLemming]

School children and theater patrons are being wiped out by the dozens by nut cases using assault weapons. Sen. Feinstein has proposed legislation in California designed to ban the possession of the type of assault weapons used in the recent mass killings. A front page article in the L.A. Times several days ago noted that the Republican legislators in California are boycotting the presentation of the proposed legislation. Not one Republican will be in attendance.

And Republicans are wondering why they can't seem to win elections of late.

You do of course realize that Connecticut has and did have an assault weapon ban in place when Sandy Hook took place, right? You also realize that the Columbine tragedy took place while the national assault weapon ban was in place, right?

There is no evidence that weapons bans reduce crime/violence. The country has a morality program and it might have something to do with government education spouting out the glories of American military domination of the world to every generation. Nobody mentions the millions of innocent casualties.

dude, read this, you want to take rights away from hundreds of millions of people for something that doesn't work lol. it is not effective, at all.