*hug*
Solid point. GUNS MUST BE FOR COMMIES!
Communist leaders like their infantry to have guns… not private ownership of guns.
I watched a movie once, where only the police and military had guns. It was called “Schindler’s List”.
This is the second time you’ve posted this dumb comment. Made even dumber by the fact that you’ve admitted to not actually seeing the movie.
AR-15 is not an assault rifle is the flavor of the day by these gun toting rednecks
An AR-15 is capable of shooting 700 rounds per minute is the flavor of the day according to dumbass democrats that occupy the U.S house of Representatives. (See Alan Grayson)
I think you’re missing the point or just didn’t illustrate it here. ISIS doesn’t have to give a direct order for those to engage in Jihad against the infidels. Even if ISIS were eliminated, this would still happen because we are at war with an ideology whose message is to convert or destroy the unbelievers. We can debate all we want that better gun control would have stopped this, but radical Islam would have found another way as it already has in many other recent incidents (Paris, Boston, Brussels, etc…). There is absolutely a clear pattern.
I will keep saying the Dems/Left don’t acknoweldge the real issue because in just about every case, they find every way to twist the conversation (gun control, radical Christianity is also just as bad, etc…) and/or label it as a one-off Columbine type event.
I haven’t double checked the source data, but this suggests that when mass shootings happen, it’s not the muslims (radical or otherwise) that are doing it often. It’s from a newspaper, so presumably that means it’s liberally biased, but how is it that every time a shooting happens, it’s twisted away from the central topic of muslim extremism?
Look, there is definitely a problem with an organization like ISIS advocating that muslim residents do things like this, and so I am behind efforts to do reasonable monitoring and interception, and also happy to get behind a plan to root out and destroy ISIS and AQ. But even if we eliminated ISIS or AQ by waving a magic wand, that map above would still be looking pretty blue.
If you want to say that the Orlando event shows that we need to step up our attacks on both problems, I can get behind that.
Having been on the fun side of several full autos, I must respectfully disagree. Terrorists lose because they are generally poorly trained and undisciplined. Semi auto is used even at close range in order to conserve ammunition. When you’re in the middle of an attack like Orlando and don’t expect to live, conservation of ammunition is less important and automatic fire becomes a better option due to the increased potential damage output. Also, the weight of ammunition is not as restricting on reloading as you seem to think. You just have to place the magazines (not clips, this is one of my pet peeves) strategically. That said, your plan for gun control is one of the better ones I’ve seen - and that is coming from a “gun-toting redneck.” I wouldn’t even be opposed to your plan being implemented for all firearms. The only problem - and this applies to all gun control legislation - is guns have so proliferated throughout the country that the black market supply will not be remotely depleted for at least a generation. Do the American people (read: Southerners and Westerners) have the patience to not repeal strict gun control in the face of criminals being easily armed for decades to come? I doubt it.
It could also be pretty much any movie set in modern day Europe or Japan.
Schindler’s List is a good film by the way. You should watch it if you haven’t.
Fair enough. I would honestly give my left nut to see my framework put in place so that actual gun control can be put in place in regions where it matters. It really bothers me to see a nation frozen in place because of an insistance on handling this at the federal level. I like guns, I earnestly believe in owning them as a check of the federal government, but if the state wants to restrict ownership (with more control being put in the hands of state voters), then I see no problem. Taking them out of circulation would be a real task, but I also think there that with patience and some smart policy moves (heavy penality and enforcement against black market guns and tax breaks etc for turning in banned guns) you could possibly accelerate the process.
I think tax breaks for turning in guns would be a fine idea given the demographics involved.
I thought most gun owners were red state rednecks who pay no taxes and live off the government?
This only works if they have proof of purchase/ownership. Otherwise, you would be incentivizing/paying for, gun theft. You might think this is a very small problem, when in fact, it’s a huge problem in urban centers.
That then takes us to the issue of registration. I’m sure I’m not the only one that does not have a receipt for every gun I have ever bought. There is not a “paper trail” for every gun I’ve been given as a gift/inheritance. To the extent BS’s plan would require registration for tax breaks, i would adamantly oppose its implementation.
I was being facetious. I had an image of a gun toting redneck stuck in a moral dilemma over which he loved more - his guns or paying less taxes.
Why? Is registration a pretext for federal government tyranny?
You do see the problem with giving states the power to decide on guns? Because eventually it can get so restrictive, that it eventually defeats gun ownership. When Japan wanted to ban imports of a certain item, they declared that all imports needed to be formerly inspected in detail, then they hired 1 guy working a few hours a day in that office doing basically nothing. The outcome is no different than an outright ban.
What if registration was handled at the state level? Also, the tax breaks would only apply to banned firearms. To the extent that your average gun theif’s taxable income is pretty low and they’re trying to cover their ass, I don’t think it would encourage a higher rate of gun theft. Couple that with stricter gun laws and penalties as mentioned in the first framework and I think it at the very least wouldn’t incentivize more theft. Regardless, I’d be fine with it as I’d love to see the guns taken out of circulation, particularly those in the hands of criminals. I’d rather give them a tax break to get that gun back (particularly with a diminishing legally owned pool) than have to take it back after spending state dollars on a police investigation because they committed a crime at high social cost.