When someone states that gun manufacturers "skirted" the law or used a "loophole", you can point out that it just illustrates the foolish and arbitrary nature of the term "assault weapon". It's a perfect time to press them to the issue-- you must either support banning all semi-automatic rifles, or not banning any. If they have a problem with magazine capacity, that is a separate issue. It has literally nothing at all to do with "assault weapons".
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
gun ban "loopholes"
- Thread starter Crankgrinder
- Start date
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Assault rifle usage is just an emotional ploy for the first wave. Sure, all semi anythings would be banned.
What would be left are registered hunting guns and shotguns. They would be kept at clubs and checked out for practice and the hunt. Eventually, the hunt would fall. Pesky species would be culled by government employees.
I'm reading a book about invasive species and how they could be greatly reduced by reasonable hunting rules but those are forbidden. Hunts are limited and the environmental damage increases.
Look - hunter isn't that attractive - deer are very cute. I almost hit one today on the way to shoot my evil semi. I would have felt bad if I ran it over. No compunctions about devouring tofu (actually I like tofu in Chinese dishes or Japanese). So the pure hunting crowd is sitting on sniper long range rifles with AP ammo.
The AWB, mag limits is just the start. Remember Hairplug Joe says you just need a double barrel with two rounds. You can get one in the UK - and do we want their restrictions?
Ok, with Shotgun Joe!
What would be left are registered hunting guns and shotguns. They would be kept at clubs and checked out for practice and the hunt. Eventually, the hunt would fall. Pesky species would be culled by government employees.
I'm reading a book about invasive species and how they could be greatly reduced by reasonable hunting rules but those are forbidden. Hunts are limited and the environmental damage increases.
Look - hunter isn't that attractive - deer are very cute. I almost hit one today on the way to shoot my evil semi. I would have felt bad if I ran it over. No compunctions about devouring tofu (actually I like tofu in Chinese dishes or Japanese). So the pure hunting crowd is sitting on sniper long range rifles with AP ammo.
The AWB, mag limits is just the start. Remember Hairplug Joe says you just need a double barrel with two rounds. You can get one in the UK - and do we want their restrictions?
Ok, with Shotgun Joe!
Someone needs to "push the issue" that there is no such thing as "assault weapons". The term "assault weapon" is a made up term that was created to refer to semi-automatic rifles that LOOK like assault rifles. Which is why any proposed AWB is such nonsense.
It's like banning a car because it's paint is red and thinking that by eliminating all red cars, it will somehow reduce the number of deaths associated with cars.
Not sure how a black gun is any more dangerous or effective than any other color of gun. Good thing the government is around to show is the errors of our ways.
It's like banning a car because it's paint is red and thinking that by eliminating all red cars, it will somehow reduce the number of deaths associated with cars.
Not sure how a black gun is any more dangerous or effective than any other color of gun. Good thing the government is around to show is the errors of our ways.
Crankgrinder
New member
i like what coach said about the loose nature of the terms i think he makes a great point. My frustration in all this comes from the same place it does for lots of folks driven home even further by the fact that lots of people, not just a few, lots of them are being raised believing this stuff, and then they get to vote! i do my best to try and educate and persuade but its tough to do with people sometimes. Folks are right about the grandfather law point. Probably should have been worded more carefully. I believe it is wrong to make someone give up things legally purchased with hard earned money just because they pass a law against later. Not just wrong, but pure nonsense.
I believe it is wrong too. I don't know precisely how the legalities work, but I suspect that there would have to be some level of compensation provided to avoid having such a law overturned.I believe it is wrong to make someone give up things legally purchased with hard earned money just because they pass a law against later. Not just wrong, but pure nonsense.
I hate the term "gun show loophole." Why don't we start taling about the "kitchen loophole" or the "back of the truck loophole"? It's the same thing.
And I thought we were innocent until proven guilty. Why should we have to submit to ANY kind of background check in order to buy or sell a legal commodity?
And I thought we were innocent until proven guilty. Why should we have to submit to ANY kind of background check in order to buy or sell a legal commodity?
Actually, the change in focus was a deliberate one, and it didn't really have much to do with mass killings. The movement to restrict handguns had stalled out, and the idea was to invent the term "assault weapon" and make those the issue:Nothing has changed,except the focus onto semi autos "assault weapons", and that only because of the high profile mass killings done in very tiny numbers using them.
Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. (...) Assault weapons (...) are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons (...) can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
I still think, as loony as some want to make it sound, the only sound defense in all this is the real one.
The Constitution was written so that if need be we the people would be the last guarantee of our own freedoms. The fact that some want to attack the 2nd Amendment is proof that some want to attack them all. They are just taking advantage of the ignorant to get it done.
And yes, they are supposed to be dangerous.
As our good friend said "What are we supposed to use man, Harsh Language?"
The Constitution was written so that if need be we the people would be the last guarantee of our own freedoms. The fact that some want to attack the 2nd Amendment is proof that some want to attack them all. They are just taking advantage of the ignorant to get it done.
And yes, they are supposed to be dangerous.
As our good friend said "What are we supposed to use man, Harsh Language?"