Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@oralloy,

And based on this, it sound like you think a 6-shooter revolver is a piss-poor self defense weapon.

If a ban on 6-shooters were proposed, would you not use “self-defense” as a legal defense?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Well, it’s easy if you understand economics Oralloy.

If loans get more expense (due to less people willing to lend) then the cost of manufacturing goes up. Those costs are passed on to dealers. Who pass them on to buyers. Which reduces the number of sales.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

And if not, then maybe make the price of firearms more expensive which will reduce sales.

Every time this crap comes up sales of guns skyrocket. And do not think for a moment people will not shell out more money, thanks to the tax cuts they have some.

As far as the banks, this has been tried before.

Quote:

Obama Administration Choking Off Bank Lending to Gun Dealers

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/18292-obama-administration-choking-off-bank-lending-to-gun-dealers

Quote:

Holder has refused, so far, to release any of the documentation demanded by Issa and Jordan in their letter, allowing Operation Choke Point to continue its illegal and unconstitutional attacks on not only honest merchants in general but especially those engaged in the gun business. If frontal attacks on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms won’t work, the backdoor assault of Operation Choke Point just might.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

And what law, or SC decision is that written in?

It's a general principle that applies to all Constitutional rights. You are not allowed to restrict a right without a good reason. And you are not allowed to restrict a right to the point that you impede the exercise of the right.

So any restrictions that you want to impose have to be justifiable with a good reason. And they still have to allow effective self defense.

Any restrictions beyond a five round detachable rifle magazine and ten round detachable handgun magazine run afoul of both rules.

There is no good reason for such a restriction, and such a restriction would impede self defense.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

And based on this, it sound like you think a 6-shooter revolver is a piss-poor self defense weapon.

Revolvers have their place. But rifles are vastly superior.

maporsche wrote:

If a ban on 6-shooters were proposed, would you not use “self-defense” as a legal defense?

Probably. And also the lack of justification for such a ban.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Well, it’s easy if you understand economics Oralloy.
If loans get more expense (due to less people willing to lend) then the cost of manufacturing goes up. Those costs are passed on to dealers. Who pass them on to buyers. Which reduces the number of sales.

So you want to reduce sales of guns that are primarily sold to the police?

I don't think this one refusal to lend will make the cost of borrowing rise.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

So a 10 round detachable pistol magazine ISN’T the minimum you’d consider as legally necessary for self defense?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

Magazines could be designed to take 1-2 minutes to change.

So someone brings two or three handguns.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Maybe. What we know about that though is that the death toll per minute will be lower with handguns.

This gives more time for people to run or for teachers to shoot attackers or for cops to run in.

1 Reply

Nothing about Holders war on guns? He had no problem arming drug cartels.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

Maybe. What we know about that though is that the death toll per minute will be lower with handguns.

I don't know about that. Some guy killed 32 people with handguns. And besides, if shooters started using only handguns, you'd be campaigning to get rid of handguns, and after that, shotguns, and after that, big hunting knives.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Over 90% of US target ranges require NRA membership before one can use the target range.

Where did you get this BS? Being an NRA certified range does not mean you have to be a member of the NRA to join, that simply points out where the NRA has certified instructors, so people can take classes to improve their skills.

Quote:

Theres a movement to dispnse with that.

Once again where did you read this?

Quote:

I quit sending my dues in around 1980 when it started to drop the outdoor skills and became a lobby for S&W, and started making the 2nd Amendment unapproachable.

They never dropped the outdoor skills, it is still a very large part of what the NRA does.

0 Replies

time to do some fund-raising to get all NRA members to get out to more conventions

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/28/rate-of-gun-injuries-drops-20-during-nra-conventions-study-finds

1 Reply

@maporsche,

The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, why do the anti-gunners always refer to hunters as the reason for the 2nd Amendment?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

A gun can be designed to accept and only accept 5 round magazines.

So guns should hold no more bullets than a standard revolver? Why only 5 rounds?

This is the creeping effect of gun control. When the bans you put in place don't work, you will increase the bans until guns are outlawed.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Just what we need a pro-Islam progressive rag to tell America about guns. Give me a break.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

You’re jumping in to the middle of a conversation without reading the conversation.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Ah yes, the slippery slope argument.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Either rifles are better, more efficient, killing machines than pistols or they are not.

Everything seems to point to the fact that they are. If they are, that means that each shot is more powerful and more deadly, meaning that when you hit your classmate they are more likely to die. They are more accurate and can fire much faster, accurately, than pistols can allowing you to murder more of your classmates in the same amount of time. As an added bonus they can be easily fitted with plentiful and mechanically sound high capacity magazines to even reduce the amount of time spent reloading when you’re shooting up a school.

These semi-automatic rifles are THE efficient, deadly, weapons of choice for murderers who want to kill as many people as possible in whatever amount of time they can. Whether that’s 3 minutes or 15 minutes.

I’m not sure a ban on handguns is something I’d ever be able to support. I own one, in fact.

Wanting to limit the deadly killing spree power of semi automatic rifles is not the same thing as banning handguns.

3 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

These semi-automatic rifles are THE efficient, deadly, weapons of choice for murderers who want to kill as many people as possible in whatever amount of time they can.

No they're not. This is some real cognative dissonance going on here. The weapon of choice for mass murderers is handguns. If you have something to prove otherwise, produce it. If not, then stop repeating it.

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know