The American Gun Rights Thread Vol. 3

[SMEAC]

Making it up? Nope. LaPierre went on his anti-government bender, referring to Ruby Ridge and Waco. McVeigh parroted the same sentiments. Bush senior resigned his NRA membership over it.

Still trying to make the terrorist connection, kind of pathetic

You probably supported Reno's actions in Waco and Ruby Ridge

 

[Dolomite]

Some more Reno magic:

I wonder how many voters turned away from Al Gore in favor of W over just this photo alone?

 

[Ruprecht]

Still trying to make the terrorist connection, kind of pathetic

You probably supported Reno's actions in Waco and Ruby Ridge

Nope (for a start, Ruby Ridge wasn't even on my radar).
I'm not equating methodology, or even making anything of McVeigh's "I am the NRA".
It's the same paranoid narrative though.

 

[SMEAC]

Paranoid, I know you and your people are cool with gun bans, US citizens aren't and this was right after one playboy.

 

[silicavaginitis]

Nah. Nothing she's talked about is remotely comparable to the Australian situation.
Her most severe proposals are reinstating the "assault weapons ban" and repealing the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act". Fat chance, and neither of those relate to the Australian situation.
To emulate Australia, She'd have to nationalise firearms laws, institute federal licencing, permits to acquire and registration, revoke self defence as a legally recognised reason for firearms ownership, restrict access to semi-auto centrefire rifles to professional hunters, restrict handguns to club competitors (and ban compact and subcompact models), restrict pump action shotguns and rim fire semi-autos to farmers and then have the mother of all buyback schemes.
All this after failing to even manage a bill for universal background checks.
Not happening.

Recently, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, she was asked about adopting a federal gun control program like the one enacted in Australia in 1996, which banned automatic and semiautomatic rifles and shotguns and mandated the buyback of those already present. Some 650,000 guns were taken from citizens and destroyed.

Clinton replied, "I do not know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at." The reason, she said, is that "by offering to buy back those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future."

Her words dude.

 

[Dolomite]

"by offering to buy back those guns..."

LoL .

1. Reclassification
2. Taxpayers fund a 'buyback' program
3. Issue numerous amnesty offers
4. Ban firearm 3D blueprints

 

[UpaLoompa]

I really don't get why Clinton is going so hard on guns now. While democrats might prefer more regulation--regardless of whether that's sensible or necessary--it isn't something that is going to attract more voters nor that is necessary to "energize the base". It's also not going to bring in more money to her campaign, at least not relative to how much going hard brings money in in opposition.

I'd really like to see the democrats drop most of their gun platform.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I really don't get why Clinton is going so hard on guns now.

Clearly she's in cahoots with the NRA. Somebody needs to check on any Clinton Foundation donations.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Clearly she's in cahoots with the NRA. Somebody needs to check on any Clinton Foundation donations.

It does drive up their donations. Her election would be the best thing for gun manufacturers since Obama.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It does drive up their donations. Her election would be the best thing for gun manufacturers since Obama.

Hence the humor in her being supported by the NRA. Then I buttoned it up with a fun reference to her rumored pay-for-play activities that funnel the proceeds through the foundation.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Hence the humor in her being supported by the NRA. Then I buttoned it up with a fun reference to her rumored pay-for-play activities that funnel the proceeds through the foundation.

I got the joke. Generally though if you even think you have to explain a joke it wasn't funny to begin with.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I got the joke. Generally though if you even think you have to explain a joke it wasn't funny to begin with.

Sure. And generally if someone gets the joke they don't explain it like they're giving new information. I was also busting on Ruprecht. Sorry if you didn't enjoy how I tied a multitude of things together. I was quite pleased with it when I hit post reply.

Are you Dochtor?

 

[Ruprecht]

Recently, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, she was asked about adopting a federal gun control program like the one enacted in Australia in 1996, which banned automatic and semiautomatic rifles and shotguns and mandated the buyback of those already present. Some 650,000 guns were taken from citizens and destroyed.

Clinton replied, "I do not know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at." The reason, she said, is that "by offering to buy back those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future."

Her words dude.

Automatics were never legal for civilian ownership here.
Yeah, exactly. She doesn't know enough details to present an actual plan, but Australia "is worth looking at".
It's unworkable. Our starting points and situations are way too far apart. We never had firearms for common self defence, we already had licencing and registration, and you guys have more than 4 times the number of guns per capita, more than 14x the overall population and porous borders. To get that buyback to work, they had to pay above market value for the majority of those firearms.
As it was, there was a fair amount of failure to comply. Guns "accidentally lost". In the US you don't even have registration to begin with. Door to door?
It's a ridiculous scenario.

 

[Ruprecht]

I really don't get why Clinton is going so hard on guns now. While democrats might prefer more regulation--regardless of whether that's sensible or necessary--it isn't something that is going to attract more voters nor that is necessary to "energize the base". It's also not going to bring in more money to her campaign, at least not relative to how much going hard brings money in in opposition.

I'd really like to see the democrats drop most of their gun platform.

It appeals squarely to her core demographic (women 30+) and allows her to differentiate herself from Bernie.
She might also be gambling on the polls, using it as a wedge issue (and it's one of Trumps most blatant flip-flops). Although that's failed before. Repeatedly.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

In the US you don't even have registration to begin with. Door to door?

I do. Didn't even need the NRA to convince me of it.

 

[Ruprecht]

I do. Didn't even need the NRA to convince me of it.

Registration for what? Am I wrong that the vast majority of guns in the US are owned without licencing or registration?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Registration for what? Am I wrong that the vast majority of guns in the US are owned without licencing or registration?

Registration for guns. You're not wrong that most people don't have to. You're wrong that it doesn't exist in the US. This is what I've been trying to get across to you. There's 50 state governments who all make their own gun laws. That's why just looking at what's happening in Congress on the federal level will give the incorrect impression as to the amount of legislation that needs defeated or overturned.

I'll take on faith this is up to date because nobody is really keeping abreast of all the various state laws and requirements.

http://smartgunlaws.org/registration-of-firearms-policy-summary/

Six states and the District of Columbia require registration of some or all firearms. Hawaii and the District of Columbia require the registration of all firearms, and New York requires the registration of all handguns through its licensing law.10 Hawaii, New York and four other states also have a registration system for certain highly dangerous firearms, such as assault weapons. These states generally ban such firearms, but allow the continued possession of grandfathered weapons if they were owned before the ban was adopted and are registered. For more information about such laws, see our summaries on Assault Weapons, 50 Caliber Weapons, and Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines.

Two of the states are NY and Cali so that's 1/5 of the US population right there.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I really don't get why Clinton is going so hard on guns now. While democrats might prefer more regulation--regardless of whether that's sensible or necessary--it isn't something that is going to attract more voters nor that is necessary to "energize the base". It's also not going to bring in more money to her campaign, at least not relative to how much going hard brings money in in opposition.

I'd really like to see the democrats drop most of their gun platform.

Yeah, I would love to see Hillary or Andy Cuomo explain why pistol grips on semiautomatic rifles should be banned.

Dems support some really stupid gun laws, but these laws aren't serious concerns for me when casting a vote.

 

[Quipling]

I really don't get why Clinton is going so hard on guns now. While democrats might prefer more regulation--regardless of whether that's sensible or necessary--it isn't something that is going to attract more voters nor that is necessary to "energize the base". It's also not going to bring in more money to her campaign, at least not relative to how much going hard brings money in in opposition.

I'd really like to see the democrats drop most of their gun platform.

Gun control is a bit odd. It's supported by an odd coalition in the democratic party of pacifists/anti-violence types, urban voters, and minorities, though the last two overlap a lot, so it's likely that one causes the other to a significant extent. It also has much stronger support among women, IIRC. It's been a while since I read about this, though, and I think I'm remembering something wrong, but its one of the issues that is felt strongly by a certain subset of democrats, but not universal in the party. Which is why it always dies.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

How does this idiot get a blog on something as widely read as Huff Po? Opinions are fine but logic like this on any sort of consistent basis should get you fired.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html?

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.

The main problem with the author's notion should jump right out to anyone who has taken civics and isn't blinded by agenda.