General Discussion

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)

17. And it also didnt reduce crime at all, so why do it again?

Mon Mar 26, 2018, 08:06 AM

Mar 2018

It was a law that banned guns based on how they looked and not much more.

And it had no measurable effect on crime.

About the only thing it did was for a few years made magazines over 10 rounds a little more expansive since you could only get ones made before 1994.

But even that effect won’t be an issue anymore. Technology now let’s anyone print a magazine with a 3d printer, so anyone intent on criminal activity can make their own now if you try to ban them again.

If a law has been tried and failed to accomplish what you want to accomplish, why advocate doing the same thing again?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

It's not about the 2nd Amendment - it's about the NRA. [View all] kentuck Mar 2018 OP

What do you mean by taken off the streets? Marengo Mar 2018 #1

They should be banned and confiscated. kentuck Mar 2018 #2

"Nobody is going to take your guns." .... "They should be banned and confiscated." n/t PoliticAverse Mar 2018 #3

You are confusing assault weapons with your "guns"... kentuck Mar 2018 #4

See post 23 sarisataka Mar 2018 #29

No laws would exist if you assume the slippery slope treestar Mar 2018 #45

In this case sarisataka Mar 2018 #61

That poster does not have a judgeship, so their opinion is not really treestar Mar 2018 #67

Many on DU probably agree with you, but not me. aikoaiko Mar 2018 #5

The NRA hides behind the 2nd Amendment. kentuck Mar 2018 #6

They are here in our society and very few are used to kill people. aikoaiko Mar 2018 #7

"Do you really want to confiscate my guns?" kentuck Mar 2018 #9

Then you should amend your OP. aikoaiko Mar 2018 #11

Let's start by not calling your AR-15 your "gun". kentuck Mar 2018 #14

The AR15 is not used in combat by the US militry aikoaiko Mar 2018 #16

And assault weapon can mean anything you want it to Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #18

NRA argument. kentuck Mar 2018 #20

Not BS at all. I even provided a example you can look up yourself Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #22

statement of fact, gejohnston Mar 2018 #35

You guys try to make it impossible treestar Mar 2018 #48

What are you talking about? Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #52

Well, how could they have defined it? treestar Mar 2018 #53

Maybe you should stop and think about that Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #58

LOL! You are seriously attempting to argue an AR-15 isnt a gun? Marengo Mar 2018 #28

How many billions you have to do so? NickB79 Mar 2018 #33

Does the ACLU "hide" behind the 1st Amendment? appal_jack Mar 2018 #25

Gun humpers need to be reminded there was an assault weapon ban in place for years and Vinca Mar 2018 #8

Most gun owners understand that. kentuck Mar 2018 #10

That is because they are, gejohnston Mar 2018 #36

The "assault weapon ban" didn't ban all AR-15 type semi-automatic rifles. n/t PoliticAverse Mar 2018 #12

Exactly - mention this when they bring up the "Slippery Slope" hexola Mar 2018 #13

Many people did think the AWB violated the Second Amendment aikoaiko Mar 2018 #15

And it also didnt reduce crime at all, so why do it again? Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #17

Respectfully, that is a very weak argument. kentuck Mar 2018 #19

What problem do you speak of when you say Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #21

Mass shootings, shanny Mar 2018 #24

That was only because the AWB allowed people to buy and own AR-15 type weapons hack89 Mar 2018 #26

There was no actual ban whatsoever NickB79 Mar 2018 #32

The problem with trying to differentiate one gun from another is the discussion in this thread Stinky The Clown Mar 2018 #23

Yes, easy to understand, MichMary Mar 2018 #27

Constitutionality is a debatable issue Stinky The Clown Mar 2018 #39

As militia membership is not a prerequisite for the private ownership of firearms, its moot. Marengo Mar 2018 #44

The Supreme Court dismissed that argument in Heller NickB79 Mar 2018 #49

The OP claims sarisataka Mar 2018 #31

Im not the OP. I am stating my view on the matter. Stinky The Clown Mar 2018 #40

It is a simple true/false sarisataka Mar 2018 #42

If I had the power, I would take the guns. Stinky The Clown Mar 2018 #43

Since the gunners always want to make it impossible to treestar Mar 2018 #50

Folks with knowledge sarisataka Mar 2018 #62

That's exactly it, they won't tell us. treestar Mar 2018 #66

Once you detach your solutions from reality, things do get simpler and easy to understand. hack89 Mar 2018 #34

The reality is that there is a small but growing sentiment in favor of my position. Stinky The Clown Mar 2018 #41

Australia now has a higher rate of private firearms ownership than before Port Arthur. Marengo Mar 2018 #46

There are plenty of guns in Australia hack89 Mar 2018 #47

Huge difference between 90s NRA and today's NRA: Initech Mar 2018 #30

that and they wrote the new Florida law gejohnston Mar 2018 #37

Paranoid? Is that those people who scream WITCH HUNT!? bucolic_frolic Mar 2018 #38

The AR-15, the SKS, and the AK-47 gay texan Mar 2018 #51

Whats the difference between an SKS and Remington Model 8? Marengo Mar 2018 #54

One is cheap, the other expensive.... gay texan Mar 2018 #57

Cost and availability aside, they are arguably similar. The Rem M8 could be had in extended and... Marengo Mar 2018 #59

Magazines zipplewrath Mar 2018 #55

Kentucky, I find it amazing how this thread reads like a post on the NRA's web site . . . . Stinky The Clown Mar 2018 #56

Maybe because its not an NRA thing, but rather a civil liberty thing. aikoaiko Mar 2018 #60

More likely, its a gun fetish thing Stinky The Clown Mar 2018 #64

Or that. aikoaiko Mar 2018 #65

NRA interpretations of the 2nd Amendment dominate loyalsister Mar 2018 #63

Gun fetishes are a public health hazard just like smoking and drunk driving. hunter Mar 2018 #68