24 Hours Later, The Anti Gun Legislation Proposal

[tombogan03884]

The ironic part is that the colony of Mass. had a law REQUIRING the ownership of a fire arm and a specified amount of ammunition. And while it was taxation that lead to dissent, it was limiting ammunition and confiscating weapons that led them to open warfare.

[MikeO]

FYI I do not support any restrictions on magazine capacity, or semiautos. I do think there are better arguments to be made in opposition. The argument that counts isn't if it would make any difference, but is it constitutional? I don't think so. 

[tombogan03884]

FYI I do not support any restrictions on magazine capacity, or semiautos. I do think there are better arguments to be made in opposition. The argument that counts isn't if it would make any difference, but is it constitutional? I don't think so.  

Here's something to think about Mike,  Logic, common sense, and laws like the Constitution are irrelevant.
That isn't how politicians work. Like my hero Rahm said "never let a good crisis go to waste". Get the sheep emotionally stired up and you can pass anything you want. As examples look how often the Gov has ignored the 10th Amendment (Obummercare )or abused the Commerce clause (Ca. weed, Montana guns ) If politics worked on logic, common sense, or Constitutional rules there never would have been a Civil War, (industrialization was making slavery impractical in the South while creating a huge demand for labor in the North. By the same token, freeing slaves with out compensation to their owners was illegally depriving them of property. )

[twyacht]

Also the 3/5 vote, that appeased the south, for the time being, while thinking big picture. Logic, common sense, are truly irrelevant.

It's personal agenda, in a collective form, whether left or right. However, it's at OUR expense, the Founders kinda knew this was coming, and even promoted it.

But left safeguards to its quest for collective tyranny.

Ergo,....the 2nd Amend.

[MikeO]

Everything is relevant in it's own way at the right time to a different degree.

Some arguments and lobbying might keep a law from being passed, but then it's just hanging over your head until the next go around. Better to put a constitutional nail in it's coffin if and when you can. And even then a change in the court can undo that.

[Sponsor]

[MikeBjerum]

The argument that if he had stopped earlier to reload they could have stopped him sooner misses several key points:

#1.  Nothing was stopping those around him from taking him down while he was shooting;
#2.  A fair shooter can reload faster than most people realize;
#3.  During the act of reloading a shooter is making movements that would make it harder to grasp his gun;
#4.  The size of a 10 round magazine makes it harder to grasp and take away than a large and long 30 rounder.

I know I'm a gun nut and so are most of you, but don't my points make sense as we discuss limits on the size of magazines?

[fightingquaker13]

The argument that if he had stopped earlier to reload they could have stopped him sooner misses several key points:

#1.  Nothing was stopping those around him from taking him down while he was shooting;
#2.  A fair shooter can reload faster than most people realize;
#3.  During the act of reloading a shooter is making movements that would make it harder to grasp his gun;
#4.  The size of a 10 round magazine makes it harder to grasp and take away than a large and long 30 rounder.

I know I'm a gun nut and so are most of you, but don't my points make sense as we discuss limits on the size of magazines?

Not really, because they conceed the essential point. "How do we make GUNS safer for those around us"? The question should be "How do we make OURSELVES safer from criminals and unbalanced individuals"? Hell, Whitman, Hinkley and Oswald did just fine with revolvers and bolt actions. If you start going down the blame the tools road, ten years from now we'll be debating whether or not wrist supported slingshots should be banned (as in OZ), and we'll still have the crazy bastards with us. Not at all a slam, its just that I'm tired of having the debate on their terms.
FQ13

[billt]

Imagine the uproar if this clown had used high performance defense ammunition instead of FMJ Ball. That woman's head would have been all over that parking lot, and there would be half a dozen bills proposed trying to ban such "unnecessarily powerful ammunition".  Bill T.

[PegLeg45]

Imagine the uproar if this clown had used high performance defense ammunition instead of FMJ Ball. That woman's head would have been all over that parking lot, and there would be half a dozen bills proposed trying to ban such "unnecessarily powerful ammunition".  Bill T.

Yep.

Or to take another spin, (as I was telling a friend the other day), imagine if the guy used a car, instead of a gun, to mow down those folks (it has happened before). The MSM would have let it go in 48 hours as old news.

[fullautovalmet76]

Not really, because they conceed the essential point. "How do we make GUNS safer for those around us"? The question should be "How do we make OURSELVES safer from criminals and unbalanced individuals"? Hell, Whitman, Hinkley and Oswald did just fine with revolvers and bolt actions. If you start going down the blame the tools road, ten years from now we'll be debating whether or not wrist supported slingshots should be banned (as in OZ), and we'll still have the crazy bastards with us. Not at all a slam, its just that I'm tired of having the debate on their terms.
FQ13

Totally agree!