g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 127,170
- 70,903
- 2,605
Good post.
I do know much of what you state and all of that I have discussed here and elsewhere. Where I get hung up is the difference in weapons which seem to have no purpose but to kill people versus killing deer. I have discussed Fed versus State bans and of course the fact that illegal guns will exist no matter what ban is in place.
Perhaps but that is where I have been exploring in my own mind.
There are many variations of the type of weapon used by the CT and OR shooters. Both shooters used variations of the AR-15.
The variations are strictly cosmetic. The AWB bans some of the cosmetic variations, and allows others. The underlying weapons itself, though, is freely available. So you don't get to buy an AR-15 with a flash suppressor under the AWB. Big deal. An AR-15 without a flash suppressor is just as deadly as one with a flash suppressor. Same with the pistol hand grip. Does a bullet not fly as fast from the barrel of an AR-15 that does not have the banned pistol hand grip as one that does? Does that really make a difference at the range from which the CT shooter was killing kids?
So then you have to try to find another position farther down the road between freedom and totalitarianism. You have to move toward banning the AR-15 itself.
But then if you ban the AR-15 itself outright, you would have to ban all semi-automatic rifles, and now you are even closer to totalitarianism.
And that is never going to happen. That would be a total violation of the Second Amendment.
.
Very informative. Thank you. So do we know if the cry for a new Fed Ban on AW's will be the same as the earlier one in scope?
That will be the starting point. Senator Feinstein is going to introduce legislation at the start of the year to reinstate the very same AWB that expired in 1994. However, I expect rewriting which will push for more movement down the road toward the totalitarian end of the spectrum.
.
Last edited: