On 3/28/2018 8:57 AM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 3/28/2018 8:41 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/27/2018 at 9:46:37 PM, wrote:


Dove has been very clear that he wants to ban all guns. He even has a
thread saying it.


My advocacy is for the elimination of civilian owned semi-automatic and
other weapons with detachable magazines.

Ignorance is bliss and therefore you must be one happy camper.Â* A .22
caliber rifle with a tubular magazine, non-detachable, can hold perhaps
a maximum 18 rounds of ammunition (.22 short).Â* A .22 caliber Ruger,
with a standard detachable box magazine hold 10 rounds.Â* Care to explain
the logic here?

Also add to the mix the rarity in which a .22 caliber rifle is used in a
crime of violence by anyone.

Yesterday, after extensive consideration, I have modified my position
and would also eliminate the vast majority of civilian owned sidearms.
There *might* be a case for civilian sidearms for those who qualify for
a concealed carry permit, security professionals, etc.

My desire to modify the constitution and eliminate the second amendment
has nothing to do with "banning all guns".Â* It has more to do with
eliminating the silliness and difficulty associated with national gun
control.

Which you propose to cure with MORE gun control legislation.Â* While you
were deep in thought pondering whether or not you would allow the common
man to possess a handgun, did you consider

1. The overwhelming number of crimes of violence using a firearm are
committed by criminals?

2. Criminals (felons primarily, but domestic abusers as well) are
already prohibited by law from possessing them, but yet they do possess
them.

3. There are already so many firearms out there (for good, bad or
otherwise) attempting to confiscate them by any means would be
comparable to draining the lakes and waterways and turning them into
dust bowls.

4. When you study the existing laws - whether idiotic, Draconian or
reasonable - you have to ask yourself:

Â*Â*Â*Â*a) why haven't they been obeyed?
Â*Â*Â*Â*b) why haven't the penalties imposed by them been utilized?

5.Â* Lastly, you do understand that criminals don't obey laws, correct?

Spare us the crap about "but if we remove the "bad" firearms from
upstanding citizens who will obey the law, we remove at least some of
the guns from the criminal element.

That logic argues that we should ban automobiles so that drunks and
reckless drivers don't have access to 4,000 lbs of killing machines.

No, I do not consider the second amendment to be sacred.

That's painfully obvious.

+100

--
Maggie