05-10-2018, 02:30 PM
(05-10-2018, 11:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nope, I'm just saying that the argument that this is the end game for "the left" or "liberals" is too broad of a brush based upon the evidence provided that this is the thinking in California.
And members of Congress tend to hold views similar to their state parties. He is one of 435 voting members and he is in the minority party. He won't even get enough support from his own party for this to go anywhere.
Here's where I have a problem with your argument. There is certainly a logic to saying one extreme voice does not entail a majority opinion. However, what I think you are ignoring is that the number and pitch of these voices is increasing. I also think you're ignoring how these things build. Recall the old board and our discussion of same sex marriage. No one, not even those of us in favor of it, foresaw just how quickly that went from a backburner issue with little support to the law of the land. I also think you severely underestimate the number of people, and the funding behind them, of people who want exactly what I'm describing.
(05-10-2018, 12:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually what you have been told is that "gun confiscation" is a separate issue from "gun registration" and other regulations. It has been explained to you repeatedly that just because there are certain areas of extremists who will call for confiscation that does not prove that every place that supports other regulations will also call for confiscation.
Quote:It's rather simple, a gun registry would make confiscation much easier. Because of this, and the lack of trust that this will not eventually occur, you have opposition to a gun registry. One thing you cannot claim anymore, at all, is that "no one wants to take your guns".[/quote]
Quote:There will always be a good bit of support for so called "Assault Rifle Bans" because they are used so often in high profile mass shootings, but like SSF said they only account for a small percentage of all illegal use of weapons. However, I don't consider an "Assault Rifle Ban" the same as "Taking er guns!!". The weapons covered in these "Assault Rifle Bans" only account for a small percentage of all guns owned. Gun owners will still have plenty of other options.
Got it. It's not longer "no one is trying to take you guns" to "no one is trying to take all of your guns". I can see why gun owners would have zero problem with that. Interestingly enough, guns covered under such a ban account for a far greater percentage of guns owned than they account for the percentage of guns used during a crime.
Quote:Personally an "Assault Rifle Ban" is way down on my wish list for gun regulation. There are lots of other laws that could make a huge difference without taking any guns away from any legal owners, but "Assault Rifles" will always be demonized because of the high profile mass shootings.
Maybe a way for people, like yourself, who have gun control laws they would like to see enacted to actually achieve your goals would be to openly oppose worthless legislation like an "assault weapons" ban that, by your own admission would have a negligible effect on gun related crime? If you throw garbage on a plate of filet mignon and crab legs you now just have a plate of garbage.
