Okay, got it. You did in fact intend to ban half the handguns and rifles in the U.S. then.
Nice little minor restriction to the 2nd Amendment there. NOT. Don't be so sure that Scalia would be with you on that one.
Florida’s Teacher of the Year Bluntly Writes WHY School Violence Is Out of Control
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
Okay, got it. You did in fact intend to ban half the handguns and rifles in the U.S. then.
Nice little minor restriction to the 2nd Amendment there. NOT. Don't be so sure that Scalia would be with you on that one.
I don't get how the Washington Post can state - ""Since 1998, the National Rifle Association has donated at least $4.1 million to current members of Congress." (as of Feb 15, 2018)" in one article.
And then Fortune lists far greater sums in this article. And both articles come from about the same time.
Something is astray. Does the Washington Post only include direct NRA donations while Fortune includes donations from PACS related to the NRA ????
One of the problems is that the term "NRA" has become the generic name for "GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATES/LOBBYISTS" in the same way that - years ago- "Xerox" became the name for photocopying. You have members of congress receiving donations from gun groups who are not actually NRA but the name is "close enough for government work." There is also a lot playing loosely with references to gun lobbying. Many conservative reps get contributions from conservative groups who support conservative reps who have gun rights as part of their platform. The lefties often loosely call groups supporting those candidates as "gun rights lobbyists" when in fact they support a wide range of other conservative issues.
Your letting your ignorance show! Why not just acquire a 0.45 double action pistol for use against your "bad guy with a .45". A double action is not a semiautomatic. The colt .45 was good enough for the armed forces, it should be good enough for you. The right type of shotgun is even better for that purpose, in my opinion.
Don't forget that if semiautomatics were banned, in twenty years your intruder won't have a semiautomatic either. (I'm not advocating for or against, just saying that's where we are headed if numbskulls like you don't wake up to reality).
Comrade? That's funny, Mr. Slartibartfast. But not as funny as your daily displays of ignorance.
If you want to look at the bigger picture, The NRA has spent just a little over $200 million on political activities in the last 20 years. That's an average of about $10 million per year. Labor unions, OTOH, spent $1.7 billion in 2016 alone, mostly on Dems which is 8.5 X what the NRA spent in 20 years, or 170 X what the NRA spent on average per year.
"The NRA has spent $203.2 million on political activities since 1998."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/11/counting-up-how-much-nra-spends/
Labor Spent $1.7 Billion on Politics in 2016, Mostly for Dems
http://freebeacon.com/issues/labor-spent-billion-politics-2016/
I'm not advocating one way or the other, (I do have an opinion, of course), I'm pointing out that if the gun lobby does not step up and suggest workable and effective controls, that a total ban on semiautomatics could be the eventual result. In other words it would be in the gun lobby's interest to start making sense, and give a little. But a suggested control won't fly with the public if it's obvious it won't be effective, or only minimally so.
And yes, confiscating, or exchanging with compensation, half the civilian guns in the U.S. is entirely feasible. With stiff enough penalties for getting caught with a semiautomatic, the majority would be coughed up. The remainder would disappear over twenty years as criminals are arrested and their guns surface. Now that you made me think about it, I realize it is very doable. LET'S DO IT!
I'm not advocating one way or the other,!
Sorry but that comment is too slippery and disingenuous for me. You are clearly making legal arguments that support a view that you advocate.
To say "Government banning of semiautomatic firearms, for example, would not violate either our inalienable right, or the Second Amendment" is a far-reaching, very far reaching conclusion on your part that has no basis in constitutional law. It is something that you want but that does not make it constitutional- but the courts are open to your ilk to make that case. Good luck.
This sentence is hilarious, for several reasons.
Shotgun is best for home defense, but not for personal defense. I can't exactly carry a shotgun around with me in case I am attacked.
Really? I have a gun that is at least 50 years old passed down from my father. Well maintained. Why in 20 years would firearms not be available?
We are not headed to a ban. It's impossible to put in place and will never happen.
What gun(s) do you use to hunt upland game and water fowl?
Americans made their choices and the results are predictable.
Last edited: