1994 Assault Weapons ban and it was successful.
We haven’t done anything since because Pubs just filibuster it.
Also, in 2009 Obama had the financial crisis on his plate
Last edited:
1994 Assault Weapons ban and it was successful.It takes two to tango. What Meaningful legislation have the democrats passed to curb gun violence.
In 2009 they controlled both the Senate and the House and had President Obama. Why didn't they make some sweeping legislation.
Way back there was an FBI report that cast doubts on the effectiveness of the 1994 AWB.1994 Assault Weapons ban and it was successful.
We haven’t done anything since because Pubs just filibuster it.
Also in 2009 Obama had the financial crisis in his late
Way back there was an FBI report that cast doubts on the effectiveness of the 1994 AWB.
That being said, yeah we haven't done jack shit since, and that clearly hasn't been effective. It's almost like widespread availability of and easy access to guns are problems...
I am not sure what the right number is, but how about more than 1 shot every second and anything that holds more than 6 rounds.But you're falling into the trap that people have for decades. What's a 'rapid fire weapon'? If you want to swing for semi-autos as a class, and place them up with full auto, go ahead, but a lot of people have struck out on that one.
You do have to ban every rube goldberg machine if you cannot succinctly define what you're trying to outlaw (spoiler: 'rapid fire weapon' doesn't cut it), because humans are inventive and we'll find lawful ways to get around legal restrictions, see bump stocks.
Same could have been said for civil rights back in the day or gay marriage in the 90s/00s. I am sorry that the metal penis is such a part of your identity that you would put it before the lives of 30,000 Americans a year directly killed by them and every other issues that affects hundreds of millions more. All so you can bath yourself with false security from your fear of the "other" coming to hurt you. Giving fearful people guns is like giving a junkie fentanyl, it just makes you lose all logic.I wonder how many of Democrats that owns one of those gun would vote to preserve that right if it they thought voting for Trump would mean securing it. All gun banners do in my opinion is make it harder for Democrats to win elections. It’s almost as if they secretly hate themselves and unconsciously are motivated to accomplish that end.
Same could have been said for civil rights back in the day or gay marriage in the 90s/00s. I am sorry that the metal penis is such a part of your identity that you would put it before the lives of 30,000 Americans a year directly killed by them and every other issues that affects hundreds of millions more. All so you can bath yourself with false security from your fear of the "other" coming to hurt you. Giving fearful people guns is like giving a junkie fentanyl, it just makes you lose all logic.
Talk about illogical reasoning I suppose your suggestions that I fave some sort of sexual fetishized related to guns that is compensatory for some sort of masculine insecurity falls into the class of objective reasoning. I think if anything that suggests you have such concerns yourself that you are projecting on me. At any rate, project away. I neither buy that or the nonsense on position on guns is based on fear.Same could have been said for civil rights back in the day or gay marriage in the 90s/00s. I am sorry that the metal penis is such a part of your identity that you would put it before the lives of 30,000 Americans a year directly killed by them and every other issues that affects hundreds of millions more. All so you can bath yourself with false security from your fear of the "other" coming to hurt you. Giving fearful people guns is like giving a junkie fentanyl, it just makes you lose all logic.
Then you need to artificially limit the ROF for any firearm that isn't a single-shot, because most shooters can easily do more than 1 shot a second (maybe inaccurately) with many firearm types. You're also going to get introduced to any number of autoloading/speedloading mechanisms which will permit a sub-second reload time, effectively eliminating the 6-round limitation.I am not sure what the right number is, but how about more than 1 shot every second and anything that holds more than 6 rounds.
It really is though. Firearm 'paraphernalia' isn't pharmaceuticals. They aren't inherently dangerous unless they're used incorrectly/illegally, and nobody regulates the way pharmaceuticals are consumed (for that reason), until you do something illegal. Also, car accessories are not 'certified' prior to use. There's innumerable 3rd party accessories that one can bolt, snap, or glue on to a vehicle and it will be perfectly legal. Y'know, just like firearms.The "this is too hard" is the common argument everyone uses when they are against regulation. Regulating guns is not hard, especially when compared to regulating telecommunication, clean water, drugs, airspace, etc. People that love guns want to try to make it sound too hard to regulate so people will give up. You absolutely don't have to specifically ban every possible rube goldburg automatic loading machine. Hell, you could go so far as making every firearm and accessory be certified prior to being put up for sale just like drugs or cars.
Sure if you're a practiced out competitive shooter you can empty a revolver basically at what appears like a full auto rate.Then you need to artificially limit the ROF for any firearm that isn't a single-shot, because most shooters can easily do more than 1 shot a second (maybe inaccurately) with many firearm types. You're also going to get introduced to any number of autoloading/speedloading mechanisms which will permit a sub-second reload time, effectively eliminating the 6-round limitation.
It really is though. Firearm 'paraphernalia' isn't pharmaceuticals. They aren't inherently dangerous unless they're used incorrectly/illegally, and nobody regulates the way pharmaceuticals are consumed (for that reason), until you do something illegal. Also, car accessories are not 'certified' prior to use. There's innumerable 3rd party accessories that one can bolt, snap, or glue on to a vehicle and it will be perfectly legal. Y'know, just like firearms.
Accurately sure, but mass shooters don't tend to go for accuracy. There's potential argument to be made for regulating firearms so the action necessarily requires a long duration (bolt, lever) and then artificially limiting the reload method (single shot, under-barrel single round at a time reloading) but you're very swiftly pigeon holing all firearms into like three different designs, and it's kind of hard to get past the 2A doing that.Sure if you're a practiced out competitive shooter you can empty a revolver basically at what appears like a full auto rate.
This isn't about capturing the extreme ends of a distribution. This is about what the average person can do practically.
And I would argue most shooters can't actually shoot particularly fast. Certainly not anywhere approaching what a bump stock would do. You still have to get the feeling of when the trigger resets and you can pull again. And that takes some practice.
The second amendment doesn't say anything about the type of guns or how many types have to be made. Just because the current radical supreme court has decided to ignore 200 years of law and decisions on the second amendment doesn't mean it all of a sudden says something than it does.Accurately sure, but mass shooters don't tend to go for accuracy. There's potential argument to be made for regulating firearms so the action necessarily requires a long duration (bolt, lever) and then artificially limiting the reload method (single shot, under-barrel single round at a time reloading) but you're very swiftly pigeon holing all firearms into like three different designs, and it's kind of hard to get past the 2A doing that.
The closer it looks like you're banning everything but a few firearms that you can guarantee won't be effective at the only real intent of the 2A, the closer you get to the scotus kicking it back and just saying 'no, amend the Constitution'.
You cannot regulate this in a way that will give the intended result and satisfy the SC, that's been proven time and time again.
Yes, current SCOTUS precedent should probably be ignored when looking to craft new laws and regulations because the framework they made (judges should play amateur historian) is so obviously ludicrous that it's already collapsing under its own weight.The second amendment doesn't say anything about the type of guns or how many types have to be made. Just because the current radical supreme court has decided to ignore 200 years of law and decisions on the second amendment doesn't mean it all of a sudden says something than it does.
Make triggers heavy, add return dampeners, and limit the gun to 6 shots. Ban any accessories or modifications that change, adjust, or aid in these things. No trigger pullers, not reloaders. You'd still be better than any gun around when the second was written.
I'll ask it the opposite way. Why did we ban automatic weapons?Talk about illogical reasoning I suppose your suggestions that I fave some sort of sexual fetishized related to guns that is compensatory for some sort of masculine insecurity falls into the class of objective reasoning. I think if anything that suggests you have such concerns yourself that you are projecting on me. At any rate, project away. I neither buy that or the nonsense on position on guns is based on fear.
But the issue I find actually worth addressing is that if you are arguing a ban on guns the parallels you draw to the past are not the same at all.
To say that they are the same would look like this, I think.
Guns kill people so guns are bad and should be banned
Opinions that racism is bad means we have to eliminate racial thoughts because they lead to bad acts.
Being gay is bad so we have to cure people who have other than heterosexual feelings.
But no, none of that. We need laws that make gun violence illegal. We need excess.laws that outlaw racial discrimination. We need laws taxation punish sexual violence and real world discrimination against gender preference differ.
Owning a gun is not inherently evil, it is a right. How you use one can be.
Being a bigot is not illegal but acting out fo bigotry can be.
You can figure out the next part as it’s just another form of bigotry as is contempt for people who own guns.
And all these laws and rights and freedoms we have are there not because of fear but because people who are free choose to defend those rights both by just laws and even self protection, the force that drives evolution.
One catalyst was the St. Valentine's Day Massacre IIRC. But in general it appears to be mob violence of the prohibition era.Adding to it Trump used EO to ban bump stocks. If he proposed legislation Dems would have backed it up. He didn't because again, Pubs would have filibustered.
That's how SCOTUS struck it down.
I'll ask it the opposite way. Why did we ban automatic weapons?
Then why not restrict it to swords? Those are arms, fits the definition in the Constitution.The second amendment doesn't say anything about the type of guns or how many types have to be made. Just because the current radical supreme court has decided to ignore 200 years of law and decisions on the second amendment doesn't mean it all of a sudden says something than it does.
Make triggers heavy, add return dampeners, and limit the gun to 6 shots. Ban any accessories or modifications that change, adjust, or aid in these things. No trigger pullers, not reloaders. You'd still be better than any gun around when the second was written.
Help me out. You explained how we made bump stocks legal and then ask me why we outlawed automatic weapons. Shouldn’t you have explained why we legalized bump stocks and then asked your question, or asked how we did both?Adding to it Trump used EO to ban bump stocks. If he proposed legislation Dems would have backed it up. He didn't because again, Pubs would have filibustered.
That's how SCOTUS struck it down.
I'll ask it the opposite way. Why did we ban automatic weapons?
We didn't legalize bump stocks. We just failed via federal legislation to make them illegal which is what Trump should have done.Help me out. You explained how we made bump stocks legal and then ask me why we outlawed automatic weapons. Shouldn’t you have explained why we legalized bump stocks and then asked your question, or asked how we did both?
I am consistent in where I stand on both issues. Both automatic weapons and bump stocks are equivalent issues and both should be banned for the same reasons and in the same way, by the House and Senate and signed by the President.
Thanks for admitting your issue isn't that it is hard to regulate guns, it's that you don't want to.Then why not restrict it to swords? Those are arms, fits the definition in the Constitution.
No, it is hard to regulate guns when one group of people can prevent it. For my own sake, I don't think they should be, beyond a certain point, but that's not the issue here. You (and many others) want to curtail a constitutional right, and give the govt permission to restrict it, without amending the Constitution. That's a terrible precedent.Thanks for admitting your issue isn't that it is hard to regulate guns, it's that you don't want to.
Of course no regulation will happen without super majorities and a SCOTUS that isn't crazy.No, it is hard to regulate guns when one group of people can prevent it. For my own sake, I don't think they should be, beyond a certain point, but that's not the issue here. You (and many others) want to curtail a constitutional right, and give the govt permission to restrict it, without amending the Constitution. That's a terrible precedent.
I mean, it actually is. The constitution was always a list of things the govt couldn't do, or couldn't touch. Technically any imposition placed on them by the govt are unconstitutional, we've just generally agreed that some are necessary for the smooth running of the govt and populace. I'd put a fiver on the current SCOTUS throwing the full-automatic ban out if the issue came up, though.Of course no regulation will happen without super majorities and a SCOTUS that isn't crazy.
Rights are not unlimited. "Shall not be infringed" is not synonymous with "cannot be regulated" since guns already are regulated. It's just a matter of "to what extent".
Why are RPGs banned? That should require a Constitutional amendment too.Of course no regulation will happen without super majorities and a SCOTUS that isn't crazy.
Rights are not unlimited. "Shall not be infringed" is not synonymous with "cannot be regulated" since guns already are regulated. It's just a matter of "to what extent".
The second amendment does not grant unlimited access to arms. Even today you can't buy automatic guns, artillery, tanks, bombs, etc. How is banning those items not an infringement but limiting bump stocks or the number of shots a gun can hold an unconstitutional curtailment of rights?No, it is hard to regulate guns when one group of people can prevent it. For my own sake, I don't think they should be, beyond a certain point, but that's not the issue here. You (and many others) want to curtail a constitutional right, and give the govt permission to restrict it, without amending the Constitution. That's a terrible precedent.