How long before guns are illegal ? (another shooting)

[randomBytes]

OP the answer is never.
These shootings are dreadful, but all the hoopla by media and politicians ignores the net benefit that guns provide.
Anyone with a functioning brain also knows that banning guns
1/ won't stop criminals or terrorists from having them
2/ won't stop crazies doing crazy things - ban trucks, fertilizer, ...

[Noble Cause]

Childrenz. And puppies. It's always childrenz and puppies.

Do you really want to kill puppies?

Yeah, they do tend to overuse the Appeal to Emotion Fallacy.

If you Really Care about Children and Puppies, you should be ready to
defend them from harm.

I'm sure there are many Ruger Ranch Rifles out there that have helped
perform that mission, defending families, friends, and even assorted Pets
& livestock over the years.


Noble

[KrisDSA]

NJ n NY guns laws are a joke. Got a gun faster in CA then I did in NJ. You need 3 reference letters and a letter from your boss. Almost all PD only do firearms paperwork 2 days a week for only 2 hours a week. I had waited up to 2 years for a permit, when by NJ Law they have to give you a notice by 60 days.

[major burnout]

I see an Australian type ban where all semi auto guns go away. Bolts will be limited to 3-5. Everyone who wants a gun will need to get a license and education as well as mental health check annually. They will make the rules so onerous that you won't want to own a gun.

They will make the law so onerous that you save time and money buying a gun off the street.

[Jimmy's]

In California it will come the day after Trump leaves office.

[ja308]

The president has spoken !

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-texas-gunmans-mental-health-is-to-blame-for-church-massacre-1509952694

"Trump: Texas Gunman’s Mental Health Is to Blame for Church Massacre"

See that calgunners its not the gun but mental health!
Once again the swamp gets foiled.
MAGA

[jaysantosauxiliarypolice]

They can pass laws to make them illegal.
Enforcing them would be civil war.

[ChuckDizzle]

No, Hinnerk is right - read again. It was you ChuckDizzle who claimed that the criminal could have easily broken the law because criminals don't obey the law.

I'm all for all sorts of laws as long as people understand that any "ban" consists of merely a prescribed penalty for breaking it, nothing more and nothing less.

We've seen this in San Bernardino, CA - the "assault weapons" are completely, definitely, doubly prohibited, yet the attackers used AWs. High capacity magazines are triply prohibited and seriously frowned upon by decent Californians, yet the attackers had them. Carrying of loaded firearms of any kind was strictly prohibited and even driving on the local streets within certain distance from local schools was a serious offense unless those guns were in locked containers (which they weren't). Murder, particularly mass murder tends to be on the illegal side most of the time too.

So, all of these "penalty enhancing bans" would've added what, a few years of prison time? To the couple who was facing a death penalty, 10,000 years and was planning on suicide-by-cop this is going to deter them?

No, it's not about "why have laws." It's about "laws do NOT prevent behavior, they only specify the penalty for breaking them."

Just facts.

We do this every time. The argument that a law isn't worth having because it will fail to deter all instances of that law being broken doesn't hold water. It is a stupid argument and it is sad that you still fail to see this when it is spelled out to you.

Go ahead and argue that you don't want a law against domestic abusers having guns for literally any other reason, but the argument you have made is a stupid one and it makes gun owners look stupid when you use it.

It's just as cliche as the "It's not an assault rifle anti gun dummy, no select fire hur hur hur" when we know darn well what they mean, they mean military pattern semi auto rifles. It's stupid and we should stop using these predictable arguments that do nothing to further the rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

[ChuckDizzle]

Is this a serious statement, or is this just another Mini Hater getting some
digs in about its inaccuracy issues prior to the 2005 revamp and 2007-
2008 heavier tapered barrel introduction ?

And if so, what possible justification do you have for banning a popular
rifle owned by a lot of Americans ?


Noble

It's a terrible rifle it always has been and it always will be. Your Mini 14 sucks.

[major burnout]

They can pass laws to make them illegal.
Enforcing them would be civil war.

Thats a war the anti crowd is willing to fight.... well thats a war the anti crowd is willing to have someone else fight.

[major burnout]

Is this a serious statement, or is this just another Mini Hater getting some
digs in about its inaccuracy issues prior to the 2005 revamp and 2007-
2008 heavier tapered barrel introduction ?

And if so, what possible justification do you have for banning a popular
rifle owned by a lot of Americans ?


Noble

Its just an anti who wants to ban a semi-auto rifle that isnt widely used by military. They say the Mini sucks but they dont want you to have something better. Just anti-gun drivel.

[deckhandmike]

Actually I think some states going full retard will end up preserving gun rights by finally making the Supreme Court actually take a case protecting what can be banned.

[major burnout]

We do this every time. It's stupid and we should stop using these predictable arguments that do nothing to further the rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Right! You should stop. Yet anti-gun fools wont stop their predictable weak arguments. Bad guys will always have military arms no matter how many laws the anti gun fools pass. Smart anti gun people know this but wont let that deter them from disarming law abiding citizens. Dumb anti gun people actually think gun laws would stop bad guys from hurting people.

[mikeyr]

I am the OP of this thread. First thanks to the ones who reminded me that some states have a 2A equivalent in their states constitutions, that will help slow down the anti-gunners. Although I predict some will try and say federal laws trump state laws, it will still slow them down. I do see Calif. (really the only state I care about at this time, since I live here for another 2 years, I actually don't want to move I like it here, but I likely will move to a free state) tightening the noose on guns, if not by outlawing them (don’t see that in my lifetime) but by making them so hard / expensive to own and shoot that the majority of gun owners give up. Some hardcore ones like me, will keep shooting because I can afford it, but most wont and I realize that.

Its just that with each shooting, I see more and more people starting to consider gun control and I was wondering when y'all thought we would reach the point of no return. I was actually looking at a gun last Friday and talking about it with my daughter after the Sunday shooting, she asked me if I really wanted to buy a $1,000 gun that the state would take away someday ? she thinks its going to happen sooner than I think. By the way she is not anti-gun, it was more of a financial question than legal.

Also thanks for keeping the thread mostly civil, a few big talkers but for the most part, good discussion, thank you.

[Noble Cause]

I support banning the Mini 14 for the good of the people.

Is this a serious statement, or is this just another Mini Hater getting some
digs in about its inaccuracy issues prior to the 2005 revamp and 2007-
2008 heavier tapered barrel introduction ?

And if so, what possible justification do you have for banning a popular
rifle owned by a lot of Americans ?


Noble

It's a terrible rifle it always has been and it always will be. Your Mini 14 sucks.

Lol.

So your unsubstantiated argument is you just don't like them personally.

Not a valid reason to call for a Ban, especially in light of the Irrational War
Anti Gun Democrats have been conducting on so called "Assault Weapons"
in states like California and New York.


Noble