A Gun control solution - perhaps

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Mar 7, 2018.

  1. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Then why haven't you found them, to support your argument against high-capacity mags?
    If you can't show what cause openings, you have no justification for pushing specific policy.
    No, that's just how you've decide to troll me.
    Even though you can't tell me how universal background checks would help without a nationwide registry.
    UBCs wouldn't hinder transfer to criminals without a gun registry.
    The Parkland, Florida, school massacre has had little lasting impact on U.S. views on gun control, three months after the shooting deaths of 17 people propelled a national movement by some student survivors, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Wednesday.

    While U.S. public support for more gun control measures has grown slowly but steadily over the years, it typically spikes immediately after the mass shootings that have become part of the U.S. landscape, then falls back to pre-massacre levels within a few months.

    And public opinion polls rarely translate to the will to pass specific policies.
    How would UBCs "[a]llow the more effective sorting of firearms by degree of hazard to the public and benefit to the possessor"? Is there some hidden regulation you assume must accompany UBCs?
    I'd like to see suppressors regulated like any common firearm, like many Western countries already do.
    Opioids are legal, prescription drugs. I'm not generally for deregulation of illegal drugs, but they aren't a Constitutional right either.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I did. Posted a couple - and used (for example) five of the nine Buzzfeed examples posted by the Truck Captain (I actually read about them, see - apparently I'm the only one. Try it).
    And that's not my only argument against high-capacity magazines.
    I did that as well. More than once. You don't read, apparently.
    Nonsense. Of course they would, as explained to you several times, and illustrated by the partial background checks now in force. Why are you making these stupid claims?
    They could, was the claim. They could be written to differentiate things like the background criteria, waiting periods, ownership regulations, and so forth, by the nature of the firearm involved - for starters.
    Exactly. But the actual public will does. Hence my observation: the bothsides jamb is frustrating the public will. It will break, because the status quo is insupportable and not supported. Your choice is whether or not to cooperate in the incoming alterations to current governance of firearms.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page