1 hour ago, cbae wrote
No, I'm not worried about inanimate objects. I'm worried about the nutters' demand for those inanimate objects.
You clearly are as your focus is on dealing with the inanimate objects and not the 'nutters'.
Disposing of 300 million guns is the easy part. The more difficult part is wresting it from your cold, dead hands. Speaking of dead, statistics show that households that own guns is actually going down, so I think gun nuts could be a dying breed. The only problem is that number of guns owned by the nutters isn't necessarily going down. We'll just have to throw bigger gun melting parties after we recover the stockpiles of guns after each nutter kicks the bucket.
Disposing of them assumes they are intended for the smelter. The fun thing about most gun 'buy backs' is that a sizable portion of what is 'bought back' are old relics which are no longer fit for use... having since been replaced.
I own the word "fascism"? Woo hoo! Finally!
Again, like so many things, you simply do not understand the meaning of the word or it's origins.
If you use a gun in a "proscribed" manner, somebody usually ends up dead (and unlawfully to boot). You should try educating yourself and learn what words mean before you use them instead of worrying about educating others.
Really? None of the firearms I own discuss deliberately pointing them at other people... in fact just the opposite.
I'd ask you to quit making stuff up... but why would you stop now?
I'm not sure why you think I'm suggesting this. I was saying that you probably don't see many machine guns used in crimes because their high prices prevent them from exchanging hands so easily thereby reducing the likelihood of their getting into wrong hands.
Again you try to invent facts out of whole cloth... and in reverse order no less. The high price of machine guns (which you seem obsessed with BTW) is a relatively new phenomenon (within 30 years)... and in the decades prior to that, while just as affordable as their semi-automatic brethren, we did not see the kind of crime you would have suspected.
Why is reality so hard for you to grok?
You're making a huge presumption about implementation details.
This is what separates a fascist liberal from a conservative... thinking.
During the Obamacare debate we were told over and over again, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, if you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan."
While your side was repeating this over and over again, the conservatives and others who opposed the law questioned this and many other predictions/promises/etc... asking what in the law guaranteed that.
Despite the reality being that nothing in the law would assure such a thing, the folks with their head in the clouds and unable to think about more than the next election cycle and immediate gains... we find out now that the claim was complete and utter BS... so you'll excuse me if when I hear specific claims made about proposed legislation today when I can find very clear weaknesses in the proposition which no one is willing/able to explain... other than admitting it's a mine to catch people later.
Gee, that's a surprise. So you're not really arguing that taxation wouldn't necessarily reduce demand in firearms. You're really arguing that to make this work, we'd have to implement something that you're philosophically against. Boo * hoo!
The taxation in it's current form hasn't much reduced demand for firearms... in fact in the area of AR-15 variants... the tax has actually increased demand!
More so, it's not just a matter of me being against registration, in my experience most firearm owners are against registration.
Boo hoo on yourself.
How about we start with this?
"Buying our products isn't going to make your pen0r any bigger."
Again we see how skewed your views are... who is it who is the nutter again?
You got me there. I'm not an ecologist, but I doubt you're one as well. Feel free to provide links to pro-hunting websites that characterize hunting as an ecological necessity.
I've spent most of my life living in the rural parts of the country... I do not require a degree in ecology to understand the inner workings of modern agriculture and the effects of it.
regarding a link... why not just Bing it?
LOL. That's rich! Dude, do yourself a favor and get off your * high horse. You come off as an arrogant * and make your company look bad in the process.
You tell me to get off my 'high horse' when you continue to be unable to defend your views and then have to broaden your attack towards others? That explains the crying.
This is basically a long-winded way of saying "I have no solution to offer, so I'll pretend there isn't a problem at all."
Here again we see the reading comprehension issue you have.
The core of the issue is contained above if one reads it correctly... if you'd like, I could go into much more detail... but that would require a greater bit of attention, independent thought and self examination than I'm betting you are willing to engage in.
But then none of this should be a surprise as we are still waiting for a proper explanation of your attack on me as a 'hypocrite'... as the made up definition you did provide doesn't quite match up with facts... which again, we all await.