Gun Control & RKBA

"trash" Democrats, or acknowledge that your assertion that I did so was incorrect and without merit.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172209975

Title: Not a word about Democrats, and using the term "current climate" to reference record gun prices is certainly a fair way to describe the firearms market today, given that gun sales are breaking record on a regular basis, so the term is certainly justified, is it not??

Paragraph 1: A description of the price history of the firearm in question, Not one word about Democrats, let alone trashing them.

Paragraph 2: A brief description of the firearms in question , and its variants. Not one world about Democrats, let alone trashing them.

Paragraph 3: Begins by mentioning the excellent price of the firearm in question (context: in the current market). The statement is then made that a law confiscating such weapons is extremely unlikely to be passed. This factual statement, written dispassionately, does not trash Democrats. (I would note that H. R. 127, which does exactly that, was introduced over a month ago and has zero cosponsors at time.)

Next, the latest version of the Assault Weapons ban is mentioned and it is noted t hat passage of a similar bill is now a possibility, and it's pointed out that people who currently own such weapons (such as the braced pistol in my OP) would be allowed to keep them. Last year's versions had 216 cosponsors, so its passage has far more of a chance of passage than the stricter bill which would confiscate all such currently owned by civilians.

It's then pointed out that if this version of the bill were to become law, although current owners of such weapons would be allowed, they would never be able to sell them. After its passage no civilians would ever be able to purchase, borrow, or inherent an assault weapon. I point out that the prices prior to enactment of such a bill would be "a sight to behold". As evidence of this, I point to the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons ban, which allowed grandfathering of such weapons and allowed them to be sold on the open market.I was going to guns shows at the time, and recall a 17 round Glodck "pre-ban" magazine which sold for around $15 in 1992 being price at $150. And people were buying them. Pre-ban rifle similarly commanded a bit premium over "post-ban"rifles which lacked flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, etc.This is solid evident that were an AWB passed which didn't allow such weapons to ever be purchased, inherited, or even given away. the price of such weapons immediately prior to enactment would be astronomical.

I then point out that even were none of this to be passed, if it were a big issue in the news, the present gun-buying panic would intensify (somewhat, at least) as many gunowners would be fearful of such measures passing, given that the Democratic Party now controls both Congress and the WH.

None of this trashes Democrats in the slightest. It's simply a description the economic consequences in the gun market as a result of Democratic control of Congress and the WH.

Finally, I note that the group on DU dedicated to extreme gun control (its most prolific poster is repeatably calling for confiscation of roughly half the guns in the US, semiautos hat accept detachable magazines. That's around a quarter billion guns.). I spoke of the group being in a "tizzy" about pistol with braces such as my recent purchase. Calling that "trashing" Democrats is absurd,

All right, your turn. What (if anything) of the above supports your position that I'm "trashing" Democrats? The harshest possible criticism with merit is that I gently poked fun at half a dozen or so posters in a tiny group on DU which requires agreement on gun control so strict it wouldn't get even a handful of votes in Congress.