5 ms·
Yes it is very political, but I disagree that it isn't rational. The stance is that registration leads to confiscation. This has been proven time and time agai
by DamnYuppie 10y ago
Yes it is very political, but I disagree that it isn't rational. The stance is that registration leads to confiscation. This has been proven time and time again. And no we don't want to be like some countries that have registrations and you have to store your weapons in some offsite facility and can only access them for certain times of the year with approved ammunition.
- pjc50 10y agoOh, I'll agree that the ratchet is real and that every proposal is intended to reduce and de-normalise gun ownership. In that sense, I can see why every single measure is opposed. It's the non-hunting rationales for ownership that are the irrational politics.
- douche 10y agoIt seems to be having the opposite effect. Every time there is a threat to institute new legislation, gun sales go through the roof.
- wolf550e 10y agoit certainly looks like the gun control lobby and gun manufacturers lobby are in symbiosis.
- hga 10y agoHeh, something like the Baptist and Bootlegger's alliance? From someone who's been in this fight since the early '70s, nope, the gun manufacturers' lobby, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF, http://nssf.org/ http://nssf.org/), is a very small political player. The gun owners lobby, especially the NRA, yes, the appearance of symbiosis is to a great extent true, but that took decades to achieve, not until the 1977 Cincinnati Revolt, and it wasn't until the 1994 "assault weapons" ban that a Federal gun control law was passed without the NRA's blessing. We're much bigger, gun and ammo manufacturing isn't a very big industry as these things go. 5 million people in the NRA, at least half the people in the US (last survey, 45% willing to admit to it)? Much larger.