Source

Anybody focused on “assault rifles” is pushing something besides “stopping gun violence.”

The New York firemen got headlines because the people feeding us this shit sandwich want you to think about “Bushmasters.” The hundreds of people in New York last year who were killed by other guns, most of them not rifles? You won’t hear much about them.

We are being played.

And then there are the Tea Party type Christians, the hardcore, Bible-thumping, Jesus-jumping folks who constitute a bloc which is effective.

The basic gunowner is not a force, doesn’t contribute money to antigun movements,isn’t active. The NRA is like the fundamental Christians, active and involved.

You can’t really count the non-NRA gun people as a lobby.

They say that handguns are accurate to about 45 feet. Realistically, in a life threatening situation that drops to 20 feet.

It seems like lot of people are ignorant about the accuracy of an easy to maneuver, lightweight rifle compared to a handgun.

You should read this

My point is, if the shooter’s neighbor wasn’t able to go down and buy one off the shelf at a gun store or a Walmart, those firefighters might still be alive.

maybe the 10 round max would have some effect on hand guns since the magazine capacity is part of the gun’s design.

Most of the popular 9mm semi handguns have a 14-15 round magazine with some capable of a 20 round magazine. 22 magnum semis have up to a 30 round capacity.

It would not be hard to design them down to 10 rounds and it would be sort of hard to overcome, but not impossible. Also, unless they confiscate existing weapons that exceed the law, what about the millions of handguns that exceed the limit.

As for assault rifles, the magazine capacity is a function of the length of the clip, limited only by practicality. A clip of extended capacity is easily produced by anyone with a simple home metal shop.

Any law limiting the round capacity of an assault rifle would totally depend on willingness to abide by the law. over sized clips would be cheap and readily available to anyone that wanted one.

I suspect that at some point there may be an attempt to confiscate and that will get dicey.

Did someone say there is no longer a silent majority? I think that is accurate. It has become a low rumbling majority. Demand for firearms is trending up and future efforts to deprive the people of their guns will only increase the demand.

Everything the Democrats have proposed is targeted towards law-abiding gun owners, restricting what they can own, and placing them in a government database of who owns what. Draw what conclusions you want to about their reasons. I’m not coming up with a lot of benign ones.

If this was really about “gun violence” there would be an entirely different set of priorities.

Mother Jones assembled a list of every U.S. mass shooting from 1982 to Newtown. Twenty years. There was a total of 513 fatalities.

This is about the same number of gun homicides that occurred in Chicago, a town with strong gun controls, just in 2012 alone.

Which of these reflects the real “gun violence” problem?

By the way, you can download the Mother Jones Excel spreadsheet. Lots of interesting information.

I’m also putting up this link again.

Which political ideology is doing the most “bribing.”

Hell, unions alone outspend the NRA by more than 30 to 1.

Working link

Over a third of gun owners are Democrats. Look at the red bar chart, and pay attention to the “gun owner, not NRA” numbers.

“Forty percent of non-NRA gun owners supported a national gun registry. Forty percent supported a ban on the sale of magazines with more than 10 rounds [the chart says 46]. Thirty-six percent supported a ban on semi-automatic weapons—a striking figure given that almost every gun sold today is semi-automatic and gun owners would be likely to know that.”

Look at the other side of those numbers:

Sixty percent of non-NRA gun owners do not support a national gun registry. Sixty percent do not support a ban on the sale of magazines with more than 10 rounds. Sixty-four percent do not support a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

And what about NRA members who don’t own guns?

It’s comforting for liberals to blame the NRA for everything, but the hard fact is that a very large number of Americans don’t agree with the “progressive” views on gun control, and the fact that a few more non-NRA gun owners do than NRA gun owners doesn’t change that.

I predict this effort won’t go anywhere in the Senate, and it’s going to be Democrats that help kill it.

I know that all the laws would just be for show, they would prohibit sales, not confiscate. I don’t believe (although it’s possible) that the left wants to disarm us to gain absolute power.

There are 3 sides involved in the story. Gun control types, concerned gun owners, and unrelenting enthusiasts. The first group wants to do something but went overboard and ignored all causes but the supply of all types of guns.They drove the second group, who were exhibiting some alignment, away from the place where they were headed- cooperation.

The NRA does represent you, Rob, and all the “good” gun owners. By default.

Until the “good” gun owners organize and put the NRA down once and for all, I’m justified in lumping you, collectively, in with the gun nuts. You’re guilty of letting the NRA speak for you, and leaving the rest of society to clean up the mess it’s created in your name.

“We” didn’t squander the “opportunity” of Sandy Hook. America is unlikely to find a solution to the problem because 71 million “good” gun owners stand aside while the NRA lies and bribes and intimidates politicians to prevent a solution in their name.

You know what’s another word for “silent majority”?

“Chickenshit”.