Because it feeds an image that people are no longer willing to accept.
I think we should ban books. We'll have a book burning party as well. They feed images.
Because it feeds an image that people are no longer willing to accept.
Well written. What do you say to those who support specific ban of automatic weapons, and no more?
I think we should ban books. We'll have a book burning party as well. They feed images.
I think a ban of automatic weapons is essentially meaningless. They are already effectively banned. The ones existing in circulation are already so regulated and difficult to obtain that I don't think mass-murderers are in pool of potential customers.
It's a summary of public opinion, not justification.
I think a ban of automatic weapons is essentially meaningless. They are already effectively banned. The ones existing in circulation are already so regulated and difficult to obtain that I don't think mass-murderers are in pool of potential customers.
Well written. What do you say to those who support specific ban of automatic weapons, and no more?
I'm sorry Eric this makes no sense. Public opinion trumps common sense justification? Surely I'm reading you wrong.
I wasn't justifying the opinion or inviting debate, just summarizing how I see the state of public opinion and why gun classification technicalities are irrelevant to it. Basically, yes it's emotional.
No shit. Pretend it's Sept 12, 1994. People are calling for a specific ban. What do you have to say?
or read it as "What do you say to those who support specific ban of (insert criteria) weapons, and no more?"
'94 AWB fairly limited in scope and only dealt with so-called "assault" semi-auto pistols and rifles (and our favorite: pistol magazine capacity)?
Because it feeds an image that people are no longer willing to accept.
Because of looks? That's bullshit.
I just wanted to recognize your patience and measured response. Goodness....
Well written. What do you say to those who support specific ban of automatic weapons, and no more?
I think a ban of automatic weapons is essentially meaningless. They are already effectively banned. The ones existing in circulation are already so regulated and difficult to obtain that I don't think mass-murderers are in pool of potential customers.
Once again, your loose use of language (aka, wrong) leads to a misunderstanding of what is (proposed by you) banned.
You say "automatic weapons." Well, what you mean is "semi-automatic." Because that is what the '94 AWB was - a ban on certain semi-auto rifles.
Full auto rifles (aka, automatic weapons) were banned in 1986.
So you are talking about banning something that's been banned since 1986 and are asking everyone why they aren't on board with that. We are.
But when you ask about semi-auto, and we tell you there is no functional difference between what is proposed to be banned and what is not, your response is, "Well, they look bad, so ban them." To which we say, GFY.
This is why when you want to ban something, you damn well better know what you are talking about and describing. "You know what I mean" doesn't cut it.
As I said:
blablabla
You're way off. Blue spoke to those supporting a blanket ban. I was asking for his thoughts on those who wish to ban specific classes of weapons. Automatics were an example of a specific class of weapons. You got confused because they're already banned and I fucked up the date (86, not 94). He answered that any ban of any class of weapon is "meaningless". Done.
I think we should ban books. We'll have a book burning party as well. They feed images.