It is a big issue if you're someone who's made it into a boogieman. And if you mention the creation of their boogieman to them, they'll accuse you of not caring if people get killed. So you either join them in their quest to have rifles with pistol grips, and handguns that hold more than six rounds, confiscated nationwide, or you're a coldhearted son of a bitch who doesn't care if people get killed.
If a law is changed, any restrictions on guns in that law still have to be justified as serving a compelling government interest.
Because it is the big issue. Banning pistol grips on rifles is the centerpiece of the left's gun control efforts. Correct. The left has no reason for doing it. They just think it is fun to violate people's civil liberties. And that gun control fight is all about pistol grips on rifles. An assault rifle is just a rifle with a pistol grip on it.
It means that the will of the majority is irrelevant when it comes to their desire to violate civil liberties. When the disagreement centers on their attempts to violate the Constitution, and when they have no other reason for violating the Constitution besides the fact that they think it is fun to do so, yes. Yet the left still complains when the NRA prevents them from passing new laws. That is incorrect. When people point out that there is no actual reason for banning assault weapons, they are making an argument. Claims that the presence or absence of a pistol grip makes any difference in an illegal shooting. Well, it's not like our right to have guns is costing any lives in the first place. Not at all. Anyone can attempt to provide a justification for a restriction on guns if they would like to try to provide one. Sure. The complete absence of any arguments that "restricting pistol grips on rifles will save lives" is evidence that restricting pistol grips on rifles will not do a thing to save any lives. There is no such off chance. Banning pistol grips on rifles will not save any lives. There doesn't have to be a need. The fact that there is no justification for restricting them means that people have the right to have them.
Without guns the King of England could march up your drive way, barge into your house and start pushing your around. Do you really want that?
No it doesnt. You're being disingenuous again. I've never heard anyone mention pistol grips outside of hipforums and i have no idea why they're discussed so much here
Wrong. The left has made banning pistol grips on rifles the centerpiece of their gun control efforts for the past 25 years. I have never been disingenuous in my entire life. Your lack of familiarity with the goals of the gun control movement does not change the fact that banning pistol grips on rifles is their primary goal. It's because there are people here who want to ban pistol grips on rifles, and other people here who refuse to let their civil liberties be violated.
Dude you're straight up being dishonest, just because you repeat something over and over again doesnt make it true. You know perfectly well that other measures of gun control have been discussed and introduced over the years and there's a reason you dont want to acknowledge it or acknowledge the gun violence in the US that led to a call for gun control in the first place. Because being honest and acknowledging it would force you to rethink your position, because your position only makes sense in contrast to "tHE LeFt jUsT wAnTs to BaN pIsToL gRiPs aNd tAkE cIvIl LiBerTiEs AwaY fOr FuN dUr DuR" Everyone, including yourself, can see how dishonest that is
Storch, it's very hard to engage you in a debate, so I'll close with this: You keep harping on how pistol grips have no value other than to make you comfortable when firing a gun, like gluing felt on the stock so it isn't as hard, yet you will never admit that pistol grips have a military function....that is they improve the military application of the gun. So I'm done with that. Then you seem to think I'm the only one in the world who thinks they don't belong on a civilian weapon that is used for hunting, defense, or target practice when many locals and nations have banned theses things. So I'm done with that. Finally you accuse me of hysteria, cognitive dissonance, obsessive fear, and paranoia! And you accuse me of wanting to take away your handguns. I will admit I just sold three of my handguns...but I still own one. And I do admit I would get rid of it if I thought it was a military style weapon but since it's a single shot .22 target pistol, I'll hang onto it for awhile. So I'm done with that. Seems like we have nothing further to discuss as I'm such a disgustingly deplorable person.
Pistol grips are just one thing. Those who can't understand that pistol grips are one component cited in the definition of many assault weapons also don't see the need to ban assault weapons.
I don't think he said you were the only such person. Everyone who thinks that way is wrong. Why would it bother you if your gun was "military style"?
Pointing out facts that you don't want to hear is not dishonesty. Exactly the opposite in fact. Well that's the really neat thing about facts. I don't need to make them true. Facts are naturally true on their own merit. Of course I do. But that does not change the reality that banning pistol grips on rifles is the centerpiece of the gun control effort. The main reason why those other measures frequently fail is because the gun control movement devotes all of their energy to trying to ban pistol grips on rifles, and the rest of the measures fall by the wayside. What are you talking about? I'm happy to acknowledge that there are other side issues that get ignored in the fight over pistol grips on rifles. I acknowledge that gun violence happens too, although I fail to see why people make such a big deal out of it. Well, I'm honest. And I acknowledge it. Sorry. No rethink of my position. I still support civil liberties. I think that "support for civil liberties" makes sense in all situations. But pointing out the truth about the left certainly doesn't hurt. No. Telling the truth is not dishonest.
Since they are one of the components that are frequently banned, it is convenient to refer to them. But there is no justification for banning any of the other components either. That's because there is no such need.
So gettig back to the subject at hand: on March 21 New Zealand banned military style semi automatic weapons effective immediately. Took them 6 days I think. Sales have been stopped to prevent stockpiling, people can hand in their guns legally for now and a buy back program is in the works valued at about $140 million. Possession of a currently banned weapon resulted in a $2,750 fine and three years in prison. Penalties may increase with the new ban. Military-style semi-automatics are defined by New Zealand below. Military-style semi-automatics (MSSAs) include semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have any of the following components: A folding or telescopic butt A bayonet lug A military pattern free-standing pistol grip A flash suppressor A magazine that holds more than 7 rounds; magazines holding up to 10 rounds may be modified to carry 7 rounds. The limit on rimfire is 15 rounds per magazine. A detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, excepting rimfire magazines, which may carry 15 rounds. AR 15 type weapons are permitted if they do not have any of the following, a folding or telescopic butt, a bayonet lug, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, or a magazine capable of holding more than 7 rounds. Note that the magazine limit appears to have been changed to 5 rounds, I don't know if other changes were made.
I have no idea where you're getting that banning pistol grips is the centerpiece of the gun control movement. I've never heard them mentioned outside of hipforums.