• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    The old AWB literally bans certain guns by name and certain cosmetic parts. That’s it. They can rename the childkiller 2000 into childkiller 3000 while reworking the buttstock to fit around the thumb hole clause. It literally drives more gun sales, not less.

    And it grandfathers in all the guns already out there. It’s a fucking nuisance law, not a solution. It’s not even a step in the right direction because I can buy an AWB legal hunting rifle and run it with old 30 round magazines for the same effect as the scary black gun with a fore grip and flash hider.

    How do you read shit like “make external magazines illegal and weld all the guns so they can’t take them” and think this guy likes the gun lobby?

    Think for half a second. Read beyond the fucking title.

    • hdnsmbt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It sounds like you possibly didn’t read my question. “Suffer” in what way, exactly? How do you read "‘Suffer’ in what way?’ and go on a tangent about renaming guns? Did you not say “This cosmetic shit is bullshit and just posturing to make gun owners suffer.”? Did I misinterpret what you said?

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You lost the entire context of it and just went with the catharsis of gun nuts having to spend more money on less than perfect guns. The point was the catharsis doesn’t help victims of gun violence.

        • hdnsmbt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I asked for clarification on something you said. The context of my question is what you said, which is why I conveniently quoted it for you. My question does not relate to the general point you’re making but to this one sentence which I believe I made more than clear through my following-up questions. You seem to prefer to pretend not to understand that in order to worm out of the question, possibly because you’re aware that what you said is a slight exaggeration.

          Also, what do you believe “catharsis” means?

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No what you’re missing is I don’t care about the single sentence. If that was all there was to the post then that’s all I would have posted.

            • hdnsmbt@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, it was already obvious you have a problem addressing a stupid thing you said. I’m sure you’re not really all that black and white, you’re just having a hard time being wrong and admitting it.