"If you don't stand for something, you'll stand for anything", you keep quoting this... But get over it, our views dont align, stop saying i dont stand for anything.
We both know you guys dont have shit for a plan.... the last 2 elections showed that.
Here's your plan that i see.
1- guns,
2- guns,
3-STOP SPEAKING YOUR OWN LANGUAGE! THIS IS AMERICA!!!!
SHITS WEAK DUDE. Get into politics, you'll find out we have a million problems with our democracy, very few of which involve guns. I live in cali, I have guns. Is there firearm laws in cali that dont make sense? sure. But the rest of the country ignores the problem. LA LA LA! I CANT SEE YOUR GUN VIOLENCE IM TOO BUSY LISTENING TO RUSH AND BECK LA LA LA!
Like smog, cali enacts over reaching laws to do something about it, while the rest of the country ignores it completely. Now texas has the worst smog in the nation. Enjoy suckers.
Doing something is allways better than ignoring the problem, to let jesus fix it.
Get real, or get used to loosing elections. You guys are right, the country HAS changed, this isnt 1950.
So, long story short, i cant help but LOL at your 5 signatures.
Did I specifically aim that at you? And, I'm involved in political discussions in a number of places - if I get my wires crossed and put the same quote in a thread two times, gimme a break. I lose track.
If you think "gun control" regs help reduce crime, I can't help but wonder what you're thinking. Track the increase in crimes against the person against the progression of gun control. I'm not going to give you sources - but the information
is readily available, you should have no trouble finding it (go back to original sources, they're easy enough to find. Don't rely on political commentators or someone's opinion -that why I'm not going to point to anything for you. You'd accuse me of being biased.)
Gun control laws are supposed to reduce crime. We've created several class of "prohibited possessor" - beginning with felons in GCA68. Does that work?
Not even close.
Repealing GCA68
et seq. will make more progress in reducing crimes against the person than taking away tools of self-defense ever will.
Ergo, rescission of GCA68
et seq. isn't about guns - it's about crime.
NFA34 should be repealed because it's a useless law, has been implemented using the principle of "constructive intent" (essentially, "constructive intent" = "if you have something we say you shouldn't have, you're going to use it to do something you shouldn't do -
whether you plan to or not.) Ex: there's a device which can be retrofit into the AR-15 (with a few readily-available parts) called a "Drop-In Auto Scear." It's a simple assembly of aluminum & steel about the size of two sugar cubes.
It's
useless without an AR-15 -
and it won't work with the AR-15 bolt carrier. You have to use an M16 bolt carrier to work with the DIAS.
Yet there have been people convicted of ownership of an "unregistered machine gun" - because they have a DIAS assembly,
even though they didn't have a rifle to put it in!
Leaving aside the crimp that NFA34 has put into development of effective small arms in the United States. The M60 was the first Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) to
not be designed by a private gunsmith (the Gatling, the various Maxims, the M1918, M1919, and M2 - the most effective military small arms were developed by individuals working in their own shops. And don't forget the M1, M1 Carbine, M14, and M16/M4.)
The M60 was also the
worst machine gun we've had in the inventory. It has since been replaced (thankfully,) but it's been replaced by a Belgian design (FN Minimi.)
For 25-30 years, field units were being saddled with an ineffective and badly-designed SAW. Soldiers have been killed because of the bad design and function of the M60. It jams. The movable sight is on the receiver, instead of on the barrel - change the barrel, and you change your point of aim (and therefore miss.)
Oh - and the tentative replacement for the M16 - the OICW - is primarily designed by H&K. A
German firm. (I have nothing against the Germans or the Belgians - but I think we should use designs produced domestically for our armed forces. Note that the issue sidearm is a Beretta - Italian - or sometimes an H&K - German. The M1911 was a domestic design - Browning. We used it as regular issue for - what? - 75-80 years?)
One small thing I can agree with the Europeans on - did you know that it's generally considered "rude" to discharge a firearm at an organised range
without a suppressor attached? They're encouraged over there, effectively illegal over here (yes, I know, they can be privately owned. But, getting a Form 4 approved for one is a
b****, and the annual inspections are just
so much fun - if you own something that they can't find on their list, you'd better have your
original Form 4 to support the fact that you own it legally. Yep - if
they lose the record, the burden of proof is on
you. This is for anything that requires a Form 4 - suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, pistols with shoulder stocks, fully-automatic or select-fire firearms, "artifact" firearms, and Any Other Weapon [something that isn't on the C&R list, and doesn't fit into any other category.)
NFA34 is poorly-written, poorly-implemented, and
has been used to make felons out of people
who have no criminal intent whatever.
Moreover, it was originally "regulation by taxation" - a $200 transfer tax on a suppressor that cost five dollars to make, or on a WWII Sten gun (which cost ~$20 to make in '42) - what do you think?
It needs to go.
As far as the "official language" think - that's more a cost measure than anything else. You don't think all of these documents are translated for free, do you? Or just happen to print themselves in thirty or forty languages?
While we're about it - next time you go into DMV, see how many languages CA DMV prints the driver's handbook in. How likely is it you're going to get pulled over by a cop who happens to speak Arabic, Farsi, Greek, Tagalog, Vietnamese, ...? (I know, the latter are more likely - but it's far from universal.)
If you're going to be here long enough to need a driver's license, you'd better be at least functional in English. For your own sake.
Instead of belittling someone for having ideas, how about you actually
analyze them first, and see if they don't make sense? What you see on the surface may not be the primary motivation - and I've got more ideas that would make sense, if implemented.
)
