Bill AB 1014: Gun violence restraining orders (move, rich, best)

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

What question am I not answering?

What laws would you support?

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Guess you can keep side steeping the point.

Ban rifles with a detachable magazine.

Or a ban on magazines that hold more than 20 rounds.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Mike930

What laws would you support?

The better question is what current laws I do not support.

Current state laws I do not support

"Assault weapon" ban
50 bmg ban
Standard size magazine ban
Not issuing ccw
Handgun roster
10 day wait for 2nd+ gun purchase
Ban on nfa items


Federally
Hughes amendment should be gone
Sound suppressors and barrel length restrictions should be removed from nfa


None of these laws actually do anything to prevent crime, they just make being a gun owner more burdensome.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Mike930

Ban rifles with a detachable magazine.

Or a ban on magazines that hold more than 20 rounds.

So this is what you want banned?

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

The better question is what current laws I do not support.

Current state laws I do not support

"Assault weapon" ban
50 bmg ban
Standard size magazine ban
Not issuing ccw
Handgun roster
10 day wait for 2nd+ gun purchase
Ban on nfa items


Federally
Hughes amendment should be gone
Sound suppressors and barrel length restrictions should be removed from nfa


None of these laws actually do anything to prevent crime, they just make being a gun owner more burdensome.

If you're against a 50 magazine ban, I guess 20 is out of the question. What about 60 or over? And serious question - why would one need such a large magazine?

As long as they do background checks, you should be able to get a concealed weapon permit and not have to wait two years for it.

Agree with you on the waiting period.

I don't see a problem with the Hughes amendment and I don't know why anyone would want a sound suppressor unless they are criminals. If there's another use please let me know.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Mike930

If you're against a 50 magazine ban, I guess 20 is out of the question. What about 60 or over? And serious question - why would one need such a large magazine?

As long as they do background checks, you should be able to get a concealed weapon permit and not have to wait two years for it.

Agree with you on the waiting period.

I don't see a problem with the Hughes amendment and I don't know why anyone would want a sound suppressor unless they are criminals. If there's another use please let me know.

Because the size of the magazine doesn't make any real world difference. It takes less than a second with very little training to change a magazine.

The hughes Amendment just drives up the price of the legal machine guns by restricting the supply. It is a regressive law that drives up the price which affects the poor and middle class the most.

The best use of a sound suppressor is to save your hearing. We have put a muffler on our cars to reduce noise, why not put one on your gun to save your hearing. A gun with a sound suppressor is still very loud and you still have to wear hearing protection when using one.

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

So this is what you want banned?

Not necessarily. If you ban magazines that hold over 20 rounds, you could keep the gun.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Mike930

Not necessarily. If you ban magazines that hold over 20 rounds, you could keep the gun.

We already have a ban of magazines over 10 rounds.

Watch this 30 second video and see why magazine restrictions do not make any real difference.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Because the size of the magazine doesn't make any real world difference. It takes less than a second with very little training to change a magazine.

The hughes Amendment just drives up the price of the legal machine guns by restricting the supply. It is a regressive law that drives up the price which affects the poor and middle class the most.

The best use of a sound suppressor is to save your hearing. We have put a muffler on our cars to reduce noise, why not put one on your gun to save your hearing. A gun with a sound suppressor is still very loud and you still have to wear hearing protection when using one.

I understand on the sound suppressors. I remember all the times I went shooting, wore hearing protection and still had ringing in my ears for hours (hard to believe, but I used to own a number of guns. I'm thinking of buying a hand gun now).

Sorry but I don't think anyone needs a machine gun.

I also understand that someone can change a magazine quickly but it shouldn't be a problem to ban the higher capacity models.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Mike930

I understand on the sound suppressors. I remember all the times I went shooting, wore hearing protection and still had ringing in my ears for hours (hard to believe, but I used to own a number of guns. I'm thinking of buying a hand gun now).

Sorry but I don't think anyone needs a machine gun.

I also understand that someone can change a magazine quickly but it shouldn't be a problem to ban the higher capacity models.

The bill of rights has nothing to do with needs.

Thousands of people have legal machine guns and yet we don't have a problem with people with legal machine guns committing crimes. So why should it be only a rich persons game?

So your saying it doesn't make a difference between having 10 round magazines and 30 round magazines so we should still restrict civil rights and ban 30 round magazines.