Houngan
7744
I’m actually more hardcore than you on this, I would assume that there probably is a list already where Grandmaster Jay and his top followers are being given additional scrutiny by the FBI.
Give a definition that does not include this:
Timex
7747
What if they just made all semi automatic weapons illegal? What would the practical downside to that be?
You would still be able to own bolt action rifles, and revolvers.
30 years of legislative history says you are wrong.
I only owned my AK-47 for 6 months before a mass shooting in Sacramento cause California to enact an assault weapon ban. I was one of the only ~%5 of so of folks in Silicon Valley who dutifully registered my assault rifle. But because the law required ammo and the gun to be in separate compartments, and I had hatchback, I never fire the gun again. Years latter, when moved to Hawaii, I sold the gun. The gun dealer told me and I didn’t own a assault rifle, because it didn’t have the proper bayonet mount. Although, I’m 100% sure that legislator intent was to ban my gun with it is 20 round clip of 7.62 MM ammo.
Houngan
7749
The practical downside? None. You fight me and I’m 110 pounds and you’re an MMA fighter, I lose. I have a revolver in my hand, I win. Bit of work on the range and you can bring your buddies, I still win.
There would roughly 200 million illegal weapons in the country. Plus I’d much rather face a mass shooter with a Rutgers 10/22 than guy with a 12 gauge shotgun, and a couple of 44 Magnum revolvers.
A bunch of GOP constituents wouldn’t be able to cosplay the military anymore, and they would no longer be able to get hard as a result.
Timex
7752
In general, the guy with the shotgun and revolvers is going to be less deadly than someone with a semiautomatic rifle.
There are plenty of semi automatic weapons which are perhaps not ultra deadly… But what would be the practical downside of making them illegal?
You would still be able to use firearms for their primary, legal purposes.
Quite right in that it’s extremely efficient at killing, so efficient that it’s also the best use to protect life. It’s so efficient at protecting life that it’s the chosen tool used by those in the profession to “protect and serve”.
The difference really is in the motive and perspective, how is one going to use that tool: To kill or to save. To take a life to simply take a life, or to take a life to save a life.
ShivaX
7754
A shitload of dead cops?
And based on the wording of Heller it would almost assuredly be ruled unconstitutional.
Houngan
7755
That seems quite silly to me. Sure, an AR is going to be a very effective weapon, if for some one in a million reason I got into a gunfight I’d sure like to have it, but day to day there’s really no reason at all. The first two words of SWAT are Special Weapons. The last two are And Tactics. That we’ve kitted out every Deputy Dog with SWAT gear is ridiculous. I’d gladly take the once a few years when the cops get outgunned over the cops going ham because they’ve been outfitted like the Galaxy Rangers. The cops are the best equipped, best legally protected, best coordinated gang on the streets. They need to act like that’s a privilege, not a necessity.
Granted, I will absolutely change my mind when police deaths exceed, say, truckers or timber workers or whatever regular jobs far exceed them. (didn’t look it up, willing to recompense.)
Protecting life, you know, except for the ones it kills.
If protecting life was actually the goal, they wouldn’t use guns. Or do you believe that anyone who looks threatening is justified in being gunned down? If I run toward a cop unarmed, do I deserve to die? If someone breaks into my house, does he deserve to die?
How bleak. I fully reject your premise that guns protect life. What you mean to say is that they are efficient at killing and that the lives of strangers mean nothing to you.
Did you actually read what you posted? If someone threatened my life or that of my family, why would of protect them so that they could kill me or my family. That’s a strange concept for me, especially as someone who works in a court house. I see the devastation violent crime leaves on the wake. It’s rare that victims request to protect the criminal.
If someone breaks into my house, I’m not going to make them tea and ask their intentions.
Then you’re only really concerned with protecting certain lives, which you can supposedly only protect by killing someone else.
Personally, I don’t think someone who breaks into my house deserves to die. I don’t think someone who a cop thinks looks suspicious deserves to die. If someone needs to be neutralized, there are a hundred ways to do it without killing them. But you don’t need to pretend that guns are all about saving lives. That gets proven untrue every few days in this country.
I think we fundamentally disagree on the value of human life, so we can just leave it at that.
A hundred ways to neutralize someone? I’m not Chuck Norris or an mma professional. I’m not going to take my chances with hand to hand combat when a firearm is more efficient.
And to kill a person who looks suspicious? Really? Lethal force should really only used to protect life and limb in immediate threat.
Weird rd that you would kill someone who broke into your house, then say that all life is saving. Which is it, all life is precious or are you just as selective to whose life is precious?
CraigM
7760
Do you not see how police in this country act? I mean George Floyd, Tamil Rice, Sandra Bland, Fernando Castile, etc etc etc.
Either you are intentionally misreading what Bradley wrote, or you are not a native English speaker and confused what was said.
While probably true, Heller was a bad decision and should be reversed.
Sorry, replying on my small phone, and no reading glasses with me atm. I hate just texting, I really hate typing on a phone. I misread it.
I know how police react as well as view the general populace in general. I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them. I honestly would rather hang out with criminals than cops, fortunately, I get to do both! LOL.
Not going to get into the whole cop shooting thing, but as a non-leo, shooting someone, even a justified defensive shooting can bankrupt you. Most gun owners I know who carry know this (you can actually buy carry insurance), and avoid wanting to shoot people. We don’t have the gov’t and police unions bankrolling defense attorneys on our behalf like cops.
Timex
7762
Why would all the cops die?
