gearheadmb said:
Justjim75 said:
In reply to The0retical :
Banning guns may be very much worse that prohibition
This is why it's' so hard to have a meaningful conversation about gun regulation. If one side says we need to look at the rules on any one thing involved with guns the people on the other side hears "ban all guns."
If I said "Diesel pickup trucks are getting so powerful and can haul such massive trailers maybe we should look at requiring a cdl to drive one, or maybe just to pull a trailer over a certain weight or length." Would everyone think I want to ban all vehicles? That the government is going to kick down your doors and take your miata?
Because it usually starts with "why do you need?" This is America, we are a free people we do not need to justify our rights to our government or any other well meaning (maybe) but ill informed action group. As long as our rights and freedoms don't infringe upon others. You can argue all day long that gun ownership is infringing upon others when things like this happen but it is not law abiding people who are committing these acts.
Again I talk about CA but the reason is I live here and the laws here spread to NY and so on. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 passing seemed to signal to those who wanted to ban guns that they could in fact defeat the 2nd Amendment if they slowly eroded them by divide and conquer. Then came the high capacity magazine ban in 2000, with previous owners grandfathered in. As of July 2018 those that are grandfathered in are no longer allowed to keep theirs either. Then came the bullet button law where you needed a tool to change magazines. Now if you want to keep your AR you have to have a fixed magazine that cannot be removed from the rifle (or go featureless.) Make it about hunting and home defense, make the hunters and casual owners think it doesn't affect them and painting AR-15s as evil when the mini-14 was the functionally the same, then ban the mini14 as well.
Recently Boulder, CO has passed an ordinance to ban new sales of "assault rifles", current owners have to prove they owned the arms before the ban and get a certificate allowing them to keep them. The ordinance passed unanimously despite the reports stating there were more speaking out against the bans at the meeting than those who were for it.
There are apartment buildings who are updating their terms to disallow firearms ownership.
There was an attempt to confiscate guns from some on social security by declaring them mentally defective.
There are politicians who openly declare they want to ban guns full stop. Proposing buy backs, then confiscation including jail time. The smarter ones won't openly admit that's what they want, they just chip away until the desired results are achieved.
There are a lot of laws on the books, not just gun laws, just laws against not being a terrible human being and hurting others, and yet we need more. They don't affect those except the law abiding. The laws keep coming and one can't help but think the end game is to disarm the lawful.
I live a little over an hour away from LA, I remember watching the riots on TV with my parents and my grandma calling from Minnesota concerned for us. I remember seeing shop owners on their roof tops with actual automatic rifles defending themselves and their property from rioters and looters, buildings on fire and police stretched thin. I read about places like Brazil where they effectively banned guns against the will of their people, the collapse of Venezuela, the number of gun crime in American cities with strict gun laws, or London who banned guns and is experiencing a murder rate increase now trying to ban knives. People can say these are modern times, we are civilized and our government would never do that or end up like that. Well, my opinion is that our Constitution is largely responsible for that and the attempts at changing the foundation our country was built upon will change that for the worse.
