The actual reason that we lost on gun control.

[krispos42]

69. Actually, it's also people like you.

You yourself admitted a couple of posts ago that an AWB would be essentially useless, because of the definitions in play about what an assault weapon is. Newtown would have been just as deadly, and just as horrific, if shitstain's rifle DIDN'T have protruding pistol grip.

Your side, I believe, wants it done to spur action, drive the grass roots, claim a political victory, and built momentum for future action and activism. But we both know that taking away protruding pistol grips is not going to change anything in and of itself.

I don't have to be (and am not) a believer in "we need guns to keep the government in line" train of thought to say "I want the right to own a gun for tactical reasons". There are a lot of very civilized countries with very representative democratic governments with far more political party options than the USA who manage to keep their governments in check and very responsive without idiots running around in the woods with rifles "training" and stocking GoldLine coins and toilet paper.

I don't have to be a militia member to admit that a protruding pistol grip is a better overall system for gripping a semiautomatic or pump rifle or shotgun than a traditional grip. I like traditional grips myself, but that's besides the point. The issue is that while it works "better" (more ergonomic) than a traditional straight grip, it has zero affect on the mechanical operation of the gun. And since we can generally agree that the better the shooter keeps a grip on his rifle, the safer everybody is, the question becomes why are you against them?

Please understand that there is very little that is actually "new" in the gun world, so when people spend a lot of time discussing the merits of, say, a pistol grip versus a straight grip, it's really arguing about relatively minor refinements as a hobby. Yeah, a Mini-14 with a pistol grip will handle somewhat better than one with a straight grip, all things being equal, but the difference is at most modest and probably better described as "minor".

What makes a real difference is training and practice. As usual for pretty much any acquired skill. The skilled guy with the deer rifle versus the newbie with the latest tricked-out AR-15? My money's on the guy with the bolt-action.



What is killing gun laws, is, partially, the ongoing crisis with filibuster reform. I've said on here for years that the filibuster needs to either go away, or the people that are filibustering need to stay on the Senate floor and actually talk, bringing the Senate to a halt ONLY as long as they have the will and the numbers.

The Republicans have been outrageously bad on this issue, and I am disgusted by the voters that keep rewarding them for such bad-government advocacy. Especially since those voters are in welfare states, states that suck money out of blue states (like Connecticut) and, instead of using that money to HELP THEIR CITIZENS, they then use that money to offer tax breaks to the companies IN CONNECTICUT if they'll move. So, they're making the wealthy states subsidize their own economic suicide.

This pissed me off to no end because the red states show ZERO appreciation, or even awareness, of their massive subsidy from the blue states.

The other part is that what could be considered "reasonable" is tied to other, unreasonable, laws. Universal background checks, good. Tying to to an "assault weapons" ban? Bad.

Hell, I even came up with a system for universal background checks that I think would work well... did you happen to see it? I don't remember if I mentioned it to you specifically or not, but I think it's pretty good because it also includes purchasing/selling limits.



Your advice: "If you want Congress to pass your agenda, you have to have a Congress that will introduce and vote for that agenda" has nothing to do with guns specifically, but is simply a truism that applies to any other policy area just as well.

Gun-control laws only directly affect people that own, or want to own, guns, in the same way that opposite-sex-only marriage laws only affect people that want to same-sex marry. The people that don't own guns but want stricter gun laws passed are not particularly motivated to do so against the nebulous background thread of gun-related violence, but the people that are affected by the laws in a negative way become particularly motivated because they feel the effects directly and unambiguously.

I am a case in point. I own a "large capacity magazine" for my .22 rifle. Connecticut just passed a law saying that I have a year to register it. So now I have to go fill out a form and be put on a list because some idiot in Hartford thinks this will accomplish something. The non-gun owners that cheered the idiot on won't have to do anything, though; they're immune to the effects of the laws they advocate for. Yay, they're all done.

It's a minor, illustrative point, but I think you can see how it can be scaled up.

I have to go take care of the kid, but I'll be back later. Thanks for the discussion.