Reply With Quote
along the same lines... Washington DC with its excessive gun restriction laws, had a very high violent crime rate. Next door, Virginia, with lax gun laws, had a much lower violent crime rate.
I didn't say we should ban guns. I said the government has an interest in regulating them, and part of that regulation can and should include classifying certain types of guns as illegal.
along the same lines... Washington DC with its excessive gun restriction laws, had a very high violent crime rate. Next door, Virginia, with lax gun laws, had a much lower violent crime rate.
On your 'product', I think they should legalize and regulate it. The drug war (at least on MJ) is stupid.But we do ban some other things fairly arbitrarily, don't we? The product I use kills nobody and it's a felony every time I smoke it. And I'm not saying people should lay down and get complacent, but , it's not the end of the world. You'll get by.
The reason pro-gun types like myself are concerned is that the anti-gun movement, even some folks like Rahm and others in Congress have stated in the past that the next weapons ban won't be about assault weapons in and of itself. They want to go after everything save single-shot shot guns. That means semi-auto handguns, revolvers, shotguns with multi-shot magazines, hunting rifles with multi-shot mags, etc.
They don't want the surgical shot on assault weapons, they want the whole ing thing.
The aftermath of er outside of DC is far from clear yet. While it establishes an individual right to bear arms, following US v Miller the SC states that the "carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons" is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Mean lookin' guns *might* fall into that category.
OTOH, see this recent vindication of the gun rights of an accused pervert:
http://volokh.com/posts/1231712651.shtml
balli called me scared and paranoid up above for saying the same thing...They want to go after everything
Great, I'm still waiting for anyone to explain why something that looks evil should be banned relative to other firearms with identical rate of fire (hand guns, etc.).
California even banned all weapons down to 10 round clips, and they still have more guns used in more crimes than any other state in our country.
Do you think that criminals are going to be going out to the local Academy to purchase their firearms if the government regulates weapons further? Come on...
England banned all firearm sales, the bad guys still found a way to get them and increase the firearm homicide rate. The government already does a thorough (FBI) background check on everyone purchasing a firearm from a dealer. The only thing that needs tweaked is for the FBI to have access to medical records when performing this check. It would have, for example, prevented the VT massacre kid from buying a weapon through an authorized dealer.
Anything other than that is unnecessary and one step closer to the federal government banning all firearms, going against the very grain of the Cons ution.
Because winehole was level headed enough to include the word "might" rather than jump to conclusions about what will happen.
Edit: Nevermind, this makes no sense as you've since quoted someone else. But actually, it still makes sense.
Sarah Brady and her ilk HATE all guns. They will not stop after an AWB... Do you think she is gonna retire?
The FBI got their heads handed to them back in the late 90s over keeping the records, and Congress passed a law at the time that said all records must be destroyed after 24 hours for the NICS checks. If someone isn't abiding by those rules, they're breaking a law enacted at the federal level. (yeah, I get what you're saying though)
Who's Sarah Brady? Is she more powerful than the NRA? I doubt it.
See what happens when you type angry?
Off-topic, but that place is incredible. Have fun man; amazing place to get away from the world.
Are you going to contribute one SINGLE fact or relevant piece of information to this thread, or are you just going to sit back, ask questions that you yourself could find the answers to, and call people names?
A lot of people here are at least offering substantive arguments for or against. You are doing neither, probably because you've made it incredibly clear that you know absolutely nothing about firearms.
I have a problem with it because they are making assault rifles out to be a scapegoat. Attempting to instill a fear of guns that look exactly like what the terrorists use on TV (despite drastic differences in ammunition and firing rate) is exactly the type of abuse of power that starts small and then DOES gradually eat away at your rights. If they REALLY cared about gun violence, they would be focusing on the culprit in ~80% (I'm heavily estimating here) of all crimes committed with a firearm -- the handgun, most typically a .45-.50 caliber or a 9mm.I don't think that's true at all. Especially for the vast majority of the general public. I think it has to do with what you alluded to earlier, pre-conceptions about the dangerous looking AR's. I seriously doubt the motivation is to start chipping away at gun rights over-all and if so, nothing will ever happen to people's shotguns, hunting rifles and handguns and you know it. The gun lobby ain't no .
Instead of focusing on gun safety and encouraging proper use, the government is drawing an arbitrary line that has no concrete definition and then attempting to enforce that upon the populace. Banning assault rifles is NOT going to help gun violence in this country. It's not going to make people safer at all. Isn't that WHY you enact a law in the first place -- to ensure the safety of citizens? Aside from the famed North Hollywood Shootout (in which case the perpetrators had FULLY automatic weapons that were not legal in the first place), when is the last time you heard about a major crime or robbery being committed with an "assault rifle"? They are loud, they are usually relatively heavy, and aside from bullpup designs, are incredibly unwieldy to just swing around. A criminal doesn't want to be running from 40 cops holding an AR-15 -- it just doesn't make any sense.
The problem isn't that they're banning guns, is that they're making a bad choice on the type of gun to ban, and to a greater extent very poorly defining that kind of weapon to ban.
Sarah Brady, wife of politician James Brady, who was shot.
President of Handgun Control, Inc. But she doesn't stop at handguns...
Fixed.I'm not angry at all. In case you haven't noticed I'm more or less on the pro-gun side of this argument.
This is the one argument that I'm pretty much down the middle on. I own two shotguns that I use for bird hunting and that's it. If they want to ban them, whatever...........if not, I understand that too.Fixed.
And for the record balli, I'm just ing around in this forum. I used to get all worked up in here until I recognized that no one will ever change their minds in here...........ever.
The second one.
Thanks for supporting the point I'm making.
Does this look like a nice looking gun?
That's a .454 Casull. Completely legal, no objections from Congress about anyone owning one as long as you have a firearm permit (state dependent).
The discharge from a .454 Casull.
Nice looking gun here?
That's a .300 Winchester Magnum, something almost every hunter owns or has shot.
How about this?
4 Bore shotgun, firing a ~1900 grain round with a 16 dram black powder charge.
The s and bullet from a 4 bore.
A Remington 700 definitely does not look dangerous.
In fact, please show me a gun that does not look "mean", if it's pointed at you. I'm fairly certain that you wouldn't like any of them. You can't tell me that we need to ban a gun that looks like this:
Simply because we're used to seeing it shot in the air at full auto on TV by the guy with the rag on his head. Because that's the ONLY way I think you could define the above rifle from looking meaner than the others. It doesn't look mean to me. It looks like what it is, a much more cheaply made gun that's just not as sleek as a high power scoped weapon.
He asked the question. I didn't claim to site facts or statistical information to him and then tell him to go look it up to verify it. He's the one who wanted to know. I'm not his personal Google service, and if you'll notice, I doubt he's going to take offense to me telling him to go search around for information that he wants to know.
Again, keep displaying your lack of knowledge on the subject by such transparent attempts at pissing me off. It's actually quite humorous.
I think it's funny that me trying to piss you off seems to be working.
Yes. It's you. Not the fact that I feel my cons utional rights might be gradually being taken away. Do you realize how self-centered that sounds, or do you care?
Welcome to my ignore list, then.
I just said it seems to be working.
Thanks, it's an honor. I love it when people think others are interested in who's on their ignore list.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
