Offline
Yes, CS, they were purchased legally,,,,, then used to commit horrible crimes.
I'm suggesting that it shouldn't be legal to purchase such weapons.
Understand?
Offline
Common Sense wrote:
Just Fred wrote:
I'll make it simple: If it's legal to hunt with it, then it's legal to own it. How about we start there?
If at some point the AR-15 or AK-47 becomes the weapons of choice for deer hunting, then I'll reluctantly go along with it. I suppose some would argue the AR should be a legal hunting tool. In fact, I spoke with a guy not long ago who believed that very thing ................. "Who is the government to tell me what guns I must use to hunt with?" were his very words.Fred
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Absolutely nothing.
True. It's about a well regulated militia.
Offline
Goose wrote:
Yes they were purchased legally,,,,, then used to commit horrible crimes.
I'm suggesting that it shouldn't be legal to purchase such weapons.
Understand?
Do you understand they are rarely used in crimes?
And the rifle ban you want would do nothing.
Offline
Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets.
This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.
Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of gun murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)
Last edited by Common Sense (12/30/2015 9:09 am)
Offline
I'm sure that it's a comfort for the people of sandy hook, Sam bernardino and aurora that it is so rare. 🙄
Offline
Common Sense wrote:
Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets.
This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.
Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of gun murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)
Do you realize that you just made an excellent case for banning handguns as well as ARs?
Offline
Imagine if we refused to put airbags in cars with the argument that they wouldn't prevent every fatality,,,,
Offline
Fred
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Absolutely nothing.
AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH! That wasn't my point! The 'well regulated militia' thing aside, my concern has to do with the type of weaponry made available to the public. That's something we, as a democratic society, can address. We've already decided that surface-to-air missiles, for example, are not appropriate for public use.
If we begin by saying, "Ok, you can buy weapons that are legally used by hunters for your own personal use", we can use that as a starting point for a sane, rational discussion.
At some point we, as a nation, need to put a lid on the ever-advancing killing power technology in the weapon industry that can be offered for sale to the public.
Offline
Common Sense wrote:
Goose wrote:
Common Sense wrote:
Fred, What is a "military" weapon? A fully automatic weapon? or a semi automatic?
Do you know that semi-auto rifles are rarely used in crimes? Something like 1 to 3% of gun crime? But people what to ban them as this would fix the problem of gang violence in the city's.
So we have a AR (Armalite Rifle) rifle which is a semi-auto rifle that has cosmetic features that people then want to call that a military weapon? One trigger pull one shot. But it looks scary so lets ban it.
"Assault weapons," is a "political term created by California anti-gun legislators to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980s.
Currently there are million's of AR rifles in private ownership across the country.Weren't ARs used at Sandy hook and San Bernadino, and a S&W M&P 15 used at Aurora?
Rarely used in crimes,,,,,,,,,,You are wrong again about AR's! First all the weapons involved were bought legally! Do you understand "legally"!
The buyers went through and the checks and procedures to acquire them. In the first case the kid murdered his Mom and stole the weapons then went on a killing spree. It the second case a friend of the shooter bought the guns and gave them to the shooter who then used them in a mass murder. How many State and Federal laws were broken? So NONE of what Obama is calling for would have stopped either shooting but that does not matter!
AR's/rifles are RARELY used in crimes! Go look at the FBI stats. You know I am correct so you will just spin your answer.
The number of murders in the U.S. in 2011 committed with rifles: 323.
In 2011, more murders were committed by knives (1,694), hands, fists and feet (728) and blunt weapons such as clubs and hammers (496), according to FBI data.
"Assault weapons," is a "political term created by California anti-gun legislators to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980s.
"Assault weapons," is a "political term created by California anti-gun legislators to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980s.. Common Sense
Correction: Assault rifle was a term coined by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany when he signed the contract to develop and produce the SIG 44 for use by the German military forces. He demanded that the weapon would be called "Sturmgewehr"'.
Offline
Goose wrote:
Common Sense wrote:
Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets.
This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.
Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of gun murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)Do you realize that you just made an excellent case for banning handguns as well as ARs?
No I did not. That is just a wish from someone who wants to ban guns.
I am glad that you were able to state your wish to ban guns. But you know that will never happen.