Shugo
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2015
Maybe if Wu actually did factually grow up around guns, that would just show she's a very low information person who refuses to learn anything, even when around one of her favorite hobbies.
She talks about outlawing large capacity "clips" and immediately proves she has zero information about what she's trying to outlaw. She also throws out the infamous "assault rifle" term, all of which require a 6-14 month waiting period simply to buy one from another person, so I'm not sure who's committing crimes with guns they have to order a year in advance for their crimes, in addition to submitting for a very detailed background check by the ATF, and paying at least $7,000 for any modern working assault rifle, since the cut off for registration was 1986. It's only legal to own "assault rifles" that were registered 40 years ago.
Can you imagine people still being upset about some model of an "assault vehicles" with a dangerous "high capacity gas tank" that has a tendency to explode when you slam into a metal railing at 130 miles/hour? And even if we outlawed the new production of these cars in 1986, and they realized it'd probably be wrong to go to hundreds of thousands of people who had registered these guns, bought them when they were legal, paid taxes on them, and confiscate them because these "assault vehicles" were too dangerous when some dipshit decided to do something to end his own life with one.
That's basically the same argument. Anyone crying about "assault rifles" is too dumb to know they've banned new registration of them for over 40 years, people whining about them are crying about technology that's older than 40 years, and machines older than 40 years.
People like Wu have no problem with the mass confiscation of firearms. California is just about starting: "large capacity" magazines, meaning standard capacity for the majority of all guns, were outlawed in California years back, but people who had bought them legally weren't required to turn in their property they legally bought. They were "grandfathered" in and could no longer sell or transfer these magazines, but they could still own and use them.
Then, years later, California just ups and says "yeah, turn in all of those magazines you legally bought with your money you worked for, or if we catch you with it we'll throw you in jail. No we're not compensating you."
Does anyone here understand the connection between registration of firearms, and an eventual confiscation with this registration? Like what Connecticut did? They required all "assault weapons" (not even an assault rifle, go look up what this is on your own) be registered. Why? How is knowing who has what AR15 going to stop Joe from killing someone with it? But it'll sure be handy if Connecticut ever changes mere possession of "assault weapons" into a crime and demands everyone who registered turn them in, or face a SWAT raid.
People like Wu love confiscation, door to door searches, all in the name of stopping the evil salty rifles that are 50+ year old relics.
In 10 years, every single registered "assault rifle" will be older than 50 years old. That officially classifies them under US law as Curios and Relics, and would allow them (normally) to send them to people in the mail simply with a $10 Federal Firearms License, dubbed a Curio and Relic license. These people are really upset about Curios and Relics being in the hands of people who appreciate them, and are trying to confiscate them all.
The ATF is also the regulatory agency that tried to define a fucking shoelace as a "registered machine gun part" because you can simulate automatic fire if you tie a shoelace around the trigger and the bolt of a gun.
There were a few moments in time where you could have been breaking the law because the ATF decided you had two unregistered machine gun parts on your shoes. That's two counts. Each count earns you a $50,000 fine and 10 years in prison.
Think about how unprogressive these progressives are when they're trying to outlaw technology like shoelaces and 40+ year old machines.
She talks about outlawing large capacity "clips" and immediately proves she has zero information about what she's trying to outlaw. She also throws out the infamous "assault rifle" term, all of which require a 6-14 month waiting period simply to buy one from another person, so I'm not sure who's committing crimes with guns they have to order a year in advance for their crimes, in addition to submitting for a very detailed background check by the ATF, and paying at least $7,000 for any modern working assault rifle, since the cut off for registration was 1986. It's only legal to own "assault rifles" that were registered 40 years ago.
Can you imagine people still being upset about some model of an "assault vehicles" with a dangerous "high capacity gas tank" that has a tendency to explode when you slam into a metal railing at 130 miles/hour? And even if we outlawed the new production of these cars in 1986, and they realized it'd probably be wrong to go to hundreds of thousands of people who had registered these guns, bought them when they were legal, paid taxes on them, and confiscate them because these "assault vehicles" were too dangerous when some dipshit decided to do something to end his own life with one.
That's basically the same argument. Anyone crying about "assault rifles" is too dumb to know they've banned new registration of them for over 40 years, people whining about them are crying about technology that's older than 40 years, and machines older than 40 years.
People like Wu have no problem with the mass confiscation of firearms. California is just about starting: "large capacity" magazines, meaning standard capacity for the majority of all guns, were outlawed in California years back, but people who had bought them legally weren't required to turn in their property they legally bought. They were "grandfathered" in and could no longer sell or transfer these magazines, but they could still own and use them.
Then, years later, California just ups and says "yeah, turn in all of those magazines you legally bought with your money you worked for, or if we catch you with it we'll throw you in jail. No we're not compensating you."
Does anyone here understand the connection between registration of firearms, and an eventual confiscation with this registration? Like what Connecticut did? They required all "assault weapons" (not even an assault rifle, go look up what this is on your own) be registered. Why? How is knowing who has what AR15 going to stop Joe from killing someone with it? But it'll sure be handy if Connecticut ever changes mere possession of "assault weapons" into a crime and demands everyone who registered turn them in, or face a SWAT raid.
People like Wu love confiscation, door to door searches, all in the name of stopping the evil salty rifles that are 50+ year old relics.
In 10 years, every single registered "assault rifle" will be older than 50 years old. That officially classifies them under US law as Curios and Relics, and would allow them (normally) to send them to people in the mail simply with a $10 Federal Firearms License, dubbed a Curio and Relic license. These people are really upset about Curios and Relics being in the hands of people who appreciate them, and are trying to confiscate them all.
The ATF is also the regulatory agency that tried to define a fucking shoelace as a "registered machine gun part" because you can simulate automatic fire if you tie a shoelace around the trigger and the bolt of a gun.
There were a few moments in time where you could have been breaking the law because the ATF decided you had two unregistered machine gun parts on your shoes. That's two counts. Each count earns you a $50,000 fine and 10 years in prison.
Think about how unprogressive these progressives are when they're trying to outlaw technology like shoelaces and 40+ year old machines.
Last edited:
.
