The dishonesty of a De Facto ban

[Taitertots]

It is dishonest to claim that a law which makes something impossible to obtain is not a ban. Especially when the object of the De Facto ban is something that will obviously wear out if used.

It is not enough that laws don't "take your guns". They are still making it certain that you will not have guns in the future. This is the reason millions of people are pissed off.

It is the sort of perverted logic that can't be applied to anything. I don't want to take your right to free speech, but now new books can be printed, existing books can't be transfered, no one can make printing presses, and any combination of papers over 10 pages is considered a book. I don't want to take your rights to free religious expression, but I'm banning new religious books, banning new churches, and banning the transfer of existing religious material. I don't want to take your guns, I want to ban the creation of new guns, ban the transfer of existing ones, and prevent the replacement of existing units.

[rrneck]

1. Time release confiscation. nt

[bluerum]

2. Who is calling for the 'bans'? I take your point but do not I don't see anyone calling for bans.

[Katya Mullethov]

3. Not by anyone relevant , no .

But there is quite a bit of noise isn't there ?

[Taitertots]

4. McCarthy, Lautenberg to start

"Another vocal supporter of gun control, Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley, told POLITICO that he hopes “something good” can come from the Arizona tragedy — perhaps discussion of a new assault weapons ban, sales at gun shows and tracing measures.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html#ixzz1BtU0wTFh
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html
Obama has repeatedly stated that he supports banning the most popular and effective civilian guns. He supported the gun ban in Chicago.

[Tejas]

13. um, maybe a a congresscritter with 57 (FIFTY SEVEN) co-sponsors?

[RSillsbee]

5. I see your point but...

Firearms are an extremely durable item. I once started a thread on the old THR asking who had a firearm greater than 100 years old and the "winning" entry was some guy who had a working Fusil that was 4oo+ years old

[Taitertots]

6. They have durability, but they are certainly not extremely durable

Of course they will last a long time hidden away in a museum, as will almost anything. When subjected to reasonable use they will certainly wear out over time.

[RSillsbee]

7. Again,

The guy w/ the fusil said he still fired it occasionally and there were any number of firearms over 100 years who's owners claimed regular use

[oneshooter]

8. I have in my collection a M92 rifle and a Colt new Service that are

several years over 100. I still shoot both and hunt with the rifle. Both are in the same caliber 38WCF.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Taitertots]

10. There were over 300,000 Colt New Service Pistol produced according to Wikipedia

How many remain in workable condition?
In one person's lifetime those guns went from plentiful to rare and expensive collectors items.

[Taitertots]

9. Firing occasionally is not regular use

When I was involved in sport shooting I'd regularly fire several hundred rounds a week. That is likely more rounds in one sitting than they will put through a gun in it's entire time in their possession.

[NewMoonTherian]

11. They'll still be around...

but after a generation of no transfers, they'll have been confiscated and either destroyed or funneled into the private collections of high-ranking government officials.

[DirkGently]

12. I guess in the country with the most guns per capita in the world, "ban" needs redefinition.