Warren is on the warpath against the second amendment again

well if the democrats thought most drinkers were Republicans and that distillery advocates mainly gave money to the GOP, I expect the dems would sound like Carrie Nation

 

I'll have to read it again, because I didn't see that in the text.

She was actually a conservative icon and insisted on banning booze.

 

nope it's not in the text but it's a starting point. Remember when NY passed a ten round magazine limit-within a few years they tried seven.

 

Funny, but true

 

You mean the 10k homicides (which includes justified homicides and police shootings).
20k of those are suicides amigo.

 

Buying in bulk is cheaper. Shooting to a high degree of skill (which it behooves one to have since one is liable for where one's bullets go unless one is a police officer) requires practice.
Additionally: 22LR is the most popular practice caliber, and is useful for all sorts of varmint hunting and recreational shooting. Also for training beginners.
Its very in demand, and its very expensive in stores considering its small size per round.
So, you buy in bulk and you buy what you see when its there.

 

Saying the quiet part out loud are we? So telling when they take the mask off.

 

The point is incrementalism and establishing a precedent.

Have you ever broken a horse? First you pen it up and control its food and water. Then you bring it to the training pen, and stand at the fence. When its comfortable with that you put the horse blanket and saddle and tack on the fence. Progressively you move to putting on each component and allowing it to grow comfortable.
Eventually, you ride it around with the bit in its teeth.

This is that. First you agree they have the right to limit firearms and ammunition purchases. They start at the edges and work inward. The same way they did with the NFA moving to the GCA then adding the Hughes amendment then trying the brady bill on for size.

 

Interesting fact: During prohibition one could acquire a medical license for alcohol consumption and possession.
The rich were able to acquire this, the poor were not.

 

Don't forget the demon rum's contribution to domestic violence. Involved in fully half of all incidents.

 

It's no one's business.

 

Do you support assisted suicide being legal?

 

Yes, the slipper slope argument. LOL. I have been listening to it for decades, and gun laws just keep loosening.

This proposal about 1000 is DOA.

 

Proper training requires regular practice. You want people that are armed to also be skilled, correct? That means expending ammo at the range. Lots of it.

For comparison, our federal law enforcement spend at least ~$340 per agent per year on ammo (probably a lot more, as these numbers only include 20 agencies). At bulk prices (which I'm sure fedgov prefers given its a lot cheaper), thats well over a thousand rounds per person per year. So the question is- do you want gun owners to be proficient with their firearms or not? Proficiency requires ammo, and bulk ammo is affordible.

 

gun banners cannot understand lots of people actually like to shoot. One of my son's best grade school buddies is now ranked 52 in the world on the ATP tour. some of the other kids didn't understand why that boy had a shopping cart full of tennis balls and eight rackets/

 

If you had ever played tennis you would know that no one would buy 8 rackets and cart full of tennis balls in one go.

I said this proposal is DOA, so I'm not sure why you quoted me on your post

 

I was asst varsity women's tennis coach when I was a grad student. I bought a gross of balls several times.
and I used to buy 10,000 lead bullets monthly when I was shooting on the USPSA tour. As to quoting you-I was going to respond to your comment when you made it, and decided not to post it. when I responded to the comment about the rounds, I didn't pay attention to the fact that my never posted reply was captured in the comment

 

in most states-but places like CT, Maryland and the Peoples collective of California, that sort of crap flies

 

A coach might buy lots of tennis balls and bunch of rackets for the class, but a player wouldn't do it. You probably would not buy 8 shotguns in one go either.

 

nope but I used to buy several flats of international trap loads. meaning well over 1000 shells. Why? because International 24G shells are normally not stocked at local sporting good stores. 2) the place I bought them from -Gamaliel shooting supply (merged with Brownells) used to have to sales a year where freight was free. SO I would buy ten flats twice a year. with a son and a wife who both were multiple state medalists (as was I) we'd buy all our tournament shells at once to save fees. Most USA Shooting events required factory shells rather than reloads

 

Don't cut the ****ing quotes.

You've never seen the slippery slope?

This is that. First you agree they have the right to limit firearms and ammunition purchases. They start at the edges and work inward. The same way they did with the NFA moving to the GCA then adding the Hughes amendment then trying the brady bill on for size

^ What's all this then?

 

Like I said, I have been listening to it doe decades and the gun laws just keep loosening.

I used to be NRA member, and had to cancel because they'd call me all the time asking for money and telling me that things were worse than ever and Obama was going to grab my guns etc None of what they said would happen ever happened.

You know what "cry wolf" means

 

Again: What do you call the procession from no restrictions federally, period, to the NFA, then GCA then Hughes Amendment and Brady Bill?

Further: The NRA are a bunch of low rent gun grabbing ******* who embezzle money for hookers they employ.
No one is hearing this from Obama or the NRA, I'm talking about 1) legislation already offered 2) restrictions already in place 3) and people you can speak to here who will explain quite calmly that they just want it to where only the government can approve your ownership of a gun and can discriminate against you in a nebulous, arbitrary, and capricious manner.

 

Ah, the old slippery slope logical fallacy.

Even if we went so far as repealing the second amendment, states could regulate/deregulate to their hearts content. There would always be a bunch of states that would let you have your way with guns. Maybe Not CA, but TX and OK, etc.

My point is if we are a long long ways off for a second amendment repeal, anything short of that doesn't even come close and even that wouldn't ban guns in most states.

There is no slippery slope.

 

really? California proves you are wrong. and if you listen to the yapping of turds like Schumer or Newsome etc, they want to ban ban ban.