I'm referring to the argument structure (ie. we regulate x, people who like x have to suck up and move on), not the content, obviously. Yes, I said you support bans on guns. Notice I did not say all guns. That being said - do you or do you not support a ban on 'assault weapons'? Yes, you do. Lol. I lied because I don't think it's rational to ban assault weapons or have a gun registry? Wat? The essence of 'reasonable' would be to respect the constitutional rights of gun owners. The essence of unreasonable is to expect them not to get upset or fight back when you want to take their guns away.
I probably should have worded that more artfully. What I meant was that you would be pissed off if I took that same argument you made, but instead of using it to justify gun control, used it to justify abortion restrictions.
That was a few months ago, as far as I can tell. Bills take a while to work out. Simple.
Step 1: Require all guns to be registered. Violators will be charged with a felony. Step 2: Ban some types of guns. Step 3: Require people to turn in those guns. Those who don't will be arrested and charged with a felony. Step 4: Repeat steps 1-3 as necessary.
So having a list of gun owners and what guns they own wouldn't possibly be a great asset in confiscating them? Liberals. Because I have 0% trust of your side on this issue. How is it idiotic to believe it? It's been done in other countries. *Canada - Gun registry is passed in 1995. PM reassures gun owners that nobody will take their guns. A year later, the Firearms Act was passed, reclassifying hundreds of thousands of guns as illegal. *Australia - Gun registries are installed over previous decades. In 1996, Parliament orders people to turn in their firearms for confiscation. *New York City - 1967, rifle owners are required to register guns. Owners are assured they will not be confiscated. In 1991, NYC bans possession of 'assault rifles'.
I didn't accuse you of wanting to ban all guns. I asked if you supported gun bans or ammo bans. That doesn't mean all guns, but any bans. Here's the problem - in one breath, your side says 'nobody wants to take your guns'. In another breath, your side talks about how you want to ban lots of guns and limit magazine capacity (never mind that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns). A rational person like myself looks at that and believes you are lying about the former, not the latter. I could take exactly what you said and apply it to abortion.
The only reason they have fought it is because there is a law in New Jersey that says that within three years of the first smart gun sale anywhere in the country, all guns sold in New Jersey must be state-approved smartguns. They fought against making them mandatory, and the technology itself isn't perfect. There are very valid concerns over whether the guns can be hacked, whether they work all the time (given that it failing in a life-or-death situation would be bad), etc You say "don't even want a gun registry" like it's a starting point. It's not. The purpose of a gun registry is to enable confiscation, plain and simple. And no, gun owners are not going to consent to tracking devices on guns. I'm not a criminal for owning a rifle, and I'm not going to be treated like it.
For the first time in forever it looks like our secondary won't be the liability. Peanut, Norman and Benwikere are a great trio, and our safeties look decent at worst. Our linebacking corps should be better than ever if Shaq lives up to hype. Defensive end is definitely the liability. Charles Johnson is always solid, but Kony Ealy - now that he is the starter - needs to step up. I liked what I saw from him towards the end of last year and in the last few preseason games, but we still have a Hardy-sized hole there.
He's more useful than Ward. He's a far better runner and a far better receiver, and blocking FBs are only useful if we play him 90% of the time, otherwise the defense knows when you are calling a run or a pass.