Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Kang Colby

(1,941 posts)
4. No. The real answer is...
Sun Dec 18, 2016, 01:26 PM
Dec 2016

gun controllers are happy with any kind of restriction or ban that they can pass. They are the special interest equivalent of vulchers. Opportunists, happy to enjoy any "meal" they find deceased and rotting along the road.

I've seen legislation introduced in various states that goes after toys, bb/pellet/paint ball, antiques, C&R, title 1, title 2, etc. It doesn't matter to them. What matters is whether or not they can pass something, anything, the public safety merits of which are of no consideration. We've even seen them go after and cannibalize their own gun controls, ex. bullet buttons, if and when it suits them.

Always remember, there is no "lower bounds" to which gun controllers will not see the need to regulate, restrict, and ultimately ban. It is for this reason I fundamentally oppose "universal infringements". Once gun controllers have private sale background checks in your state - they WILL move on to bans, measures to weaken due process protection, costly licensing and registration schemes, tax penalties, medical approvals/records review/physicians approval for purchase, ever extending waiting periods, limiting gun sales to approved product rosters, magazine capacity restrictions, and anything else they can think of. All of these infringements on our right to self defense have been implemented in places across the country and much more.





Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Sniper rifle v assault (weapon) rifle [View all] discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2016 OP
The M1 is capable of hitting targets at 1/3 of a mile Johnathan146 Dec 2016 #1
The M1 Garand is a great rifle and an excellent design discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2016 #5
The M1 Garand is classafied as a "battle rifle". oneshooter Dec 2016 #10
I think I read that somewhere but... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2016 #14
The talk of banning sniper rifles is nothing more than, virginia mountainman Dec 2016 #2
How far back do you want to go? oneshooter Dec 2016 #3
First of all... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2016 #6
"Criteria:" Anything what sticks on the wall. Eleanors38 Dec 2016 #18
And, interestingly, yagotme Dec 2016 #7
No. The real answer is... Kang Colby Dec 2016 #4
re: "...gun controllers are happy with any kind of restriction or ban that they can pass." discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2016 #8
The .50 cal shooting down a plane comes from WW2. ManiacJoe Dec 2016 #9
I have heard the 9 yards detail but I wasn't aware that the M2 was the gun discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2016 #12
Yes Brownings were carried yagotme Dec 2016 #15
I've heard a number of explanations for the 9 yards discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2016 #17
The next time they build up a head of steam kudzu22 Dec 2016 #11
BACKLASH???????????????? discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2016 #13
Nah. Couldn't be. n/t yagotme Dec 2016 #16
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Sniper rifle v assault (w...»Reply #4