Bring your guns to DC

[notyoueither]

When did a ban on something that criminals want lead to a desired reduction of some stat in your country?

Do you have a clue?

[notyoueither]

Incidently, you made the idiotic statement that long guns are nearly impossible to conceal.

Bull****!

You can saw off rifles and shotguns pretty easy. Ban handguns and see what happens. Far more lethal weapons will become the norm.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You can argue a lot of things. But it's purely speculative.

We have plenty of constitutional law that's on shakier ground (Roe, anyone?)

[KrazyHorse]

That's why I find the current system stupid...

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Incidently, you made the idiotic statement that long guns are nearly impossible to conceal.

Bull****!

You can saw off rifles and shotguns pretty easy. Ban handguns and see what happens. Far more lethal weapons will become the norm.

yet again.

If your theory had any currency, sawed of weapons would be far more common than they currently are because as you note they are more deadly. Why should any criminal chose a handgun over a sawed off shotgun if your statement about the ease with which they can be concealed was close to the truth? Can you fit a sawed off shotgun in your waistband under a jacket without it being plainly obvious?

Wait, why am I even replying to your inane stuff??

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's why I find the current system stupid...

It works, for the most part. I don't really think any other (extant) system works much better.

[notyoueither]

Do you have any clue about firearms?

I thought not.

Can you think of a difference between a firearm designed to be fired as a pistol and a rifle or shot gun that is modified? Can you imagine why readily available pistols would be popular?

Now, can you imagine the difference in punch between a pistol fired .45 round and a rifle fired .303? Forget a 12 gauge blast.

I thought not. You have no ****ing idea what you are talking about to begin with, so why ask?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Do you have any clue about firearms?

I thought not.

Can you think of a difference between a firearm designed to be fired as a pistol and a rifle or shot gun that is modified? Can you imagine why readily available pistols would be popular?

Now, can you imagine the difference in punch between a pistol fired .45 round and a rifle fired .303? Forget a 12 gauge blast.

I thought not. You have no ****ing idea what you are talking about to begin with, so why ask?

You are dense, aren't you?

Criminals chose guns that are available. handguns are not only more common, cheaper, easier to conceal, but also easier to steal and to ship. Some facts in place fo your ranting:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

[notyoueither]

Thanks, that's along the lines of what I posted last night. Talk about dense...

Now, how does that effect the ability of criminals to modify long guns if handguns are banned?

[DanS]

By the way, even though banning ammunition for handguns is too cute by half, I think banning nuclear enrichment for your personal nuclear weapon perhaps would make sense. It's risky to the uninvolved public and there's probably lots of nasty knock-on environmental effects. Lots of other arms chemistry would fall under this category, IMO.

Even though the right to bear arms is clear, it is not absolute. The clear and unassailable right to free speech doesn't allow you to yell fire in a crowded theater, after all.

[KrazyHorse]

It's risky to the uninvolved public and there's probably lots of nasty knock-on environmental effects. Lots of other arms chemistry would fall under this category, IMO.

So is nuclear power generation. But private entities are allowed to engage in it.

[DanS]

The power generation is, you're right. But to be fair, nuke power generation is a highly regulated process, and indeed, last I knew, there's only one company in the US that was allowed to refine the fuel. Further, for a while there, it was virtually impossible to break ground on a new nuclear plant in the US. Besides, I would bet that the process of refinement to weapons grade presents its own risks and impacts.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by DanS
Even though the right to bear arms is clear, it is not absolute. The clear and unassailable right to free speech doesn't allow you to yell fire in a crowded theater, after all.

Were you to step to the personel and seriously and politely state your opinion there is a fire going on, however misguided that opinion may be, they'd probably declare you nuts but not forbid you from expressing it.

[DanS]

I guess my point is that the constitution isn't a mutual suicide pact.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It works, for the most part. I don't really think any other (extant) system works much better.

No one has picked up on this? I am absolutely shocked that a statement of the form "the US government/constitution is possibly the best there is" has not drawn somebody's ire.