Originally posted by JimL
View Post
0000000000000a2.jpg
Scary-looking illegal version of the
single-shot Thompson Contender
0000000000000a2b.jpg
Completely legal version with absolutely
no functional difference whatsoever
Scary-looking illegal version of the
single-shot Thompson Contender
0000000000000a2b.jpg
Completely legal version with absolutely
no functional difference whatsoever
As I told you before what were classed as "assault weapons" had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the function of the firearm but was based upon cosmetics. Although you tried to goofily laugh that off despite the fact that, as I noted, even the staunchly anti-gun Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence groused, "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced."
Even the liberal SalonLos Angeles Times (again hardly a bastion of conservative thought and not a supporter of the Second Amendment) complained that the ban was a joke because it "focused on cosmetics" like flash suppressors and bayonet attachments.
But getting back to pistols, I guess since most revolvers are semi-automatic and in that these revolvers can be converted into rapid fire very easily, with one process was patented back in the 19th century, I guess that means they should be outlawed as well.
If you're actually serious about wanting to do something you should be demanding that the current laws be enforced because what difference will new laws make if the government ignores them? As I noted earlier:
Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
The same thing happened under Obama. Despite all his tough talk prosecutions dropped over 42% during his Administration from what it was under George W. Bush.
So again what difference will passing new laws or expanding old ones make if they are not enforced?
Comment