Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Liberal Party/Democrat Gun Control Advoats ARE DAMNED HYPOCRITS!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Translation: you're not serious about gun control.
    Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand American politics, or do you really not know how the system works?
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DOR View Post
      Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand American politics, or do you really not know how the system works?
      I know your system banned a hole.

      Chimo

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
        Inaction makes you as guilty as the GOP. And this from a Canadian with no dog in your fight!!!!!!
        What inaction? 23 bills regarding gun control have been proposed in the last 20 years. They die in a split Congress or get found unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

        Gun Control Legislation That Passed and Failed Over the Last 20 Years | Stacker
        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
        Mark Twain

        Comment


        • #19
          And I'm sure there's a lot more once you add the State level. I took the time to read some of the bills in question, especially the assault weapons ones and they follow the old same pattern of naming the firearm trade name and naming the tacticool accessories that are to be banned. It allows the same loop holes that I've discussed before. Forward hand holds and thumb holes to replace pistol grips, 10 shot mags or quick insert clips. Basically every loop hole that was designed to get around 1994 assault weapons ban is still around. California, I believe, addressed this by banning thumb holes also (manufacturers got around this by designing a pistol grip like stock), detached receiver before magazine change (manufacturers got around this by quick insert clips so you don't have to change magazines). In general, trying to ban everything around the assault weapon without banning the assault weapon, namely the action.

          The 1994 AWB and the 2022 AWB name the rifles by trade name. Then, what is so hard about banning the action? They're defined by the patents.
          Chimo

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            ...what is so hard about banning the action?
            You know perfectly well what is so hard about getting things done in America's divided politics.
            Why do you persist is blaming Democrats?
            Trust me?
            I'm an economist!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by DOR View Post
              You know perfectly well what is so hard about getting things done in America's divided politics.
              No, I don't. The 1994 and 2022 AWB identifies specific firearms by brand and model trade marked names. What is the difference between that and banning the Action by patent name?

              Fine, you don't want to ban American companies but what kind of lobbying can NORINCO do?

              Originally posted by DOR View Post
              Why do you persist is blaming Democrats?
              Because they persist in making the same failed legalese over and over again. What's the definition of insanity? Repeating failure. Have you even read the 1994 AWB and the 2022 AWB? What exactly is the difference that would make it more effective this time around? California at least tried something new if only trying to ban tacticool.
              Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 11 Jul 23,, 06:25.
              Chimo

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                And I'm sure there's a lot more once you add the State level. I took the time to read some of the bills in question, especially the assault weapons ones and they follow the old same pattern of naming the firearm trade name and naming the tacticool accessories that are to be banned. It allows the same loop holes that I've discussed before. Forward hand holds and thumb holes to replace pistol grips, 10 shot mags or quick insert clips. Basically every loop hole that was designed to get around 1994 assault weapons ban is still around. California, I believe, addressed this by banning thumb holes also (manufacturers got around this by designing a pistol grip like stock), detached receiver before magazine change (manufacturers got around this by quick insert clips so you don't have to change magazines). In general, trying to ban everything around the assault weapon without banning the assault weapon, namely the action.

                The 1994 AWB and the 2022 AWB name the rifles by trade name. Then, what is so hard about banning the action? They're defined by the patents.
                They will fail just as well.

                The bill will never get through the House or Senate...there a lot more proposals that never make it out of committee...including ones that have gone after the sears. They never see the floor for a vote.

                Its not for want of trying. And assault weapons are the problem mostly in mass shootings. Handguns are far and away the cause of the majority of gun deaths in the US.

                Homicides by murder weapon in the U.S. 2021 | Statista
                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                Mark Twain

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                  They will fail just as well.
                  ??? I thought the 2022 AWB passed the House?

                  Chimo

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    ??? I thought the 2022 AWB passed the House?
                    Died in the Senate because they couldn't get 60 votes for cloture.

                    No GOP senators voted for it.
                    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                    Mark Twain

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      No, I don't. The 1994 and 2022 AWB identifies specific firearms by brand and model trade marked names. What is the difference between that and banning the Action by patent name?

                      Fine, you don't want to ban American companies but what kind of lobbying can NORINCO do?

                      Because they persist in making the same failed legalese over and over again. What's the definition of insanity? Repeating failure. Have you even read the 1994 AWB and the 2022 AWB? What exactly is the difference that would make it more effective this time around? California at least tried something new if only trying to ban tacticool.
                      Alright, so you admit to not knowing how the American political system works, but why oh why do you then pretend to know anything at all about what might actually pass Congress?
                      Trust me?
                      I'm an economist!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post

                        Died in the Senate because they couldn't get 60 votes for cloture.

                        No GOP senators voted for it.
                        Thanks, but maybe that part wasn't clear enough.
                        Trust me?
                        I'm an economist!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by DOR View Post
                          Alright, so you admit to not knowing how the American political system works, but why oh why do you then pretend to know anything at all about what might actually pass Congress?
                          Does the 1994 AWB ring a bell? Do you read the bills and what passed or did you just rely on newslines? I, at least, took the time to read the 1994 and 2022 AWB.
                          Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 11 Jul 23,, 19:33.
                          Chimo

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            Does the 1994 AWB ring a bell? Do you read the bills and what passed or did you just rely on newslines? I, at least, took the time to read the 1994 and 2022 AWB.
                            Congratulations.
                            For my part, I “read” Political Science — in the British sense of the word — at Cal.
                            Now, were we talking about mechanisms, or politics?
                            Trust me?
                            I'm an economist!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by DOR View Post
                              Congratulations.
                              For my part, I “read” Political Science — in the British sense of the word — at Cal.
                              Now, were we talking about mechanisms, or politics?
                              I'm talking results. How did the 1994 AWB came into effect and how did the 2022 AWB came so far? You can dance around "politics" all you want. The results speak for themselves. The 1994 AWB became LAW.
                              Chimo

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X