What does tougher gun regulations look like?

No, there are plenty of anti-gunners that lie and say "we don't want to ban all guns".

In 2016, Obama said "I'm not looking to disarm you ". In 2023, he talks about "eliminating guns". In 2016, he lied. Eliminating gun ownership was the goal all along.

Lots of people say they want Australian style gun control. In Australia, a person has to prove a need to own a gun and home defense isn't a good enough reason.

 

Or UK and Japan levels of violence, necessitating the confiscation of 100s of millions of guns.

 

you are mistaken if you think I am offended. I am amused at how stupid many people are

 

once you have a goal and made a decision, the "slippery slope" is easy to see. If you get someone who has these views:

1) restricting the rights of gun owners will decrease crime
2) decreasing crime is more important than the rights of gun owners

that person has made all the decisions needed for him to advocate complete gun bans

 

There is a good chance they say the same about you, because dissing people is easy to do.

I guess we have been on that 'slippery slope' since the 30s and gun laws keep getting more relaxed.

 

I'm looking forward to them getting "relaxed" to the point where I can buy a rifle through the Sear & Roebuck catolog, just like my grandparents did.

 

Sears doesn't exist anymore, so its going to be a long wait.

I order my guns on line, and so could you if you wanted.

 

Cool, I'll order my new suppressor online too.

 

Whatever makes you happy.

On-line shipping is much easier than using those catalogs your grandparents used.

Here is a nice one. Its called Rugged Oculus

https://www.silencershop.com/silencers/rugged-oculus.html

 

Those firearms still need to go to an FFL where you will need to transport yourself and pass a background check before taking possession. The Post Office used to just drop them off at your house.

 

Yes. Its easy, - and fun. My dealer has a range too, where you can try out your new firearm.

 

I prefer to build my own.

 

Caliber Rating.17 HMR | .22 LR | .22 MAG | 5.7x28 FN
Kinda limited.

 

Maybe so, but there are many kinds, some of which are well over $1000.

 

You confuse how some people think with how the courts rule. and I see you are really making no effort to dispute my comment on how gun banners think.

 

do you think suppressors should be on the NFA list subject to those idiotic tax stamps and waiting periods?

 

You make a hobby out of telling everyone what they think and what they are, and there is really nothing to say about that. Me thinks you should let people explain themselves.

And you see a slippery slope, when the exact opposite is happening,

 

so if 45% of the judges and politicians want to ban guns but the justices superior to them say no, how does that dispute my point. EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT who contended for the presidential nomination wanted to ban semi auto rifles.

 

What point?

Dems make no bones about their view on it. What is this in relation to?

 

that those who claim they only want more restrictions or merely to ban a few types of firearms have already made all the decisions necessary to support additional to complete bans

anyone who wants to ban semi auto rifles-used in less than 1.5% of the murders-and claims their banning desires are motivated by desires to reduce murder or violent crime have already made two decisions

1) that banning honest people from owning certain firearms will reduce violent crimes/murder with said firearms and

2) the reduction of murders/violent crime is more important than the rights of honest gun owners.

 

What decisions might those be? Clinton banned such firearms, and it did not cause anyone to expand it. Any such law would have to be written to define what it bans, and everything else would be out of scope.

I agree banning such rifles would not have much impact on crime. They just get more attention because they are used in high profile mass killings.

 

didn't you even bother reading what I wrote

those decisions gun banners have made are

1) deciding that banning honest owners from owning some guns will decrease crime and

2) the goal of reducing violent crime is more important than the rights of honest people to own firearms

 

Those are their opinions.

And?

 

you really appear to want to evade the points I have made.

those are decisions people have to make in order to support something honestly

every person you meet who wants to ban semi auto rifles will say their REASON for doing so is they have DECIDED that banning those weapons from being owned by honest folks, will decrease crime

every one of them will admit that reducing crime is more important than the rights of honest owners.

 

I never heard anyone say they have decided that. It is their opinion that such ban would reduce crime and reducing gun violence is a high priority for them, while gun rights is a lower priority for them. That is what they believe, and you disagree. I get it.