Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure -- some extremists want to ban all guns but most Democrats in office and voters and independents and swing voters most definitely don't want to ban all guns.
I would love for responsible gun owners to sit down and have a real discussion about what can and can't be done.
I get it -- we all hate any restrictions to our 'freedoms' but we all have to endure some restrictions in order to live in a society.
Explain that verbiage to me. So they are banning a semi auto rifle, and the many versions of it, while grandfathering in all existing semi auto rifles that they have a ban for ? That makes zero sense.
You are not talking about the most intelligent group on the planet.
But clearly the formal argument is that they are trying to stop these guns from being used to shoot up schools in particular.
If you all can figure out how to identify a 'responsible' gun owner please tell me.
That's the problem right. WE can't inherently identify a responsible gun owner.
So the issue becomes how to make it harder for the irresponsible gun owner to get a gun that can kill so many so quickly.
Again -- totally have no interest in learning about guns abut I would love for the 'responsible' gun owners to help in providing a solution as to how to stop the crazies from getting these guns.
Can you tell me how to identify a bad doctor?
Doctors kill 5-6x as many people each year through malpractice than are credited to guns. But you're focused on guns. Ever wondered why?
Can you tell me how to identify a responsible driver?
Bad drivers are responsible for about twice as many deaths as are related to guns each year, discounting suicides. Licensing obviously hasn't solved the problem, right?
The malpractice thing is really important. If saving lives is your goal, why are you looking at guns, when you could be having a much larger impact by demanding more accountability for doctors? But I'll bet you didn't even know that problem existed. Because your position on this isn't yours.
IF people are interested in what he ACTUALLY said.
https://nadler.house.gov/news/docume...umentID=394886 “The Assault Weapons Ban Act would prohibit the sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. At the same time, it grandfathers existing semiautomatic assault weapons and contains numerous protections for law enforcement and responsible gun owners, such as hunters, gun collectors, farmers, sport shooters, and those who use firearms for self-defense.
the 2 sentences are contradictory
“The Assault Weapons Ban Act would prohibit the sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. At the same time, it grandfathers existing semiautomatic assault weapons and contains numerous protections for law enforcement and responsible gun owners, such as hunters, gun collectors, farmers, sport shooters, and those who use firearms for self-defense.
so it bans possession, but grandfathers the existing 450million weapons...... so in other words (IOW) it does nothing
I have been clear that I find it hard to dictate any rules regarding guns because it is not something I can relate to.
BUT I have never interpreted the gun control legislation goals to be to take guns away from responsible people. I see the laws as meant to make it harder for the criminals, mentally unstable to get the guns -- legally or illegally.
Again I'm not advocating for this legislation but I do think your feeling that the laws are just to hurt legal gun owners is not in line with the true goals.
For whatever reason the last time there was a ban on assault rifles there was a significant decline in the use of those rifles for violence. Not debating the actual correlation of the ban and the decline
For sure --- gun manufacturers do now want any restrictions and will push the agenda as coming after 'responsible gun owners' but that's not really the target.
And define responsible.
In our community the police department has adopted a community campaign to remind people every night to lock their cars or take their guns out of their unlocked cars. Seems we have a real problem with so called 'responsible gun owners' -- not being so responsible.
criminals don't obtain weapons legally....they buy them off the street
this law prevents NOTHING as to illegal guns....but it certainly is against the legal gun owner/future legal gun owner
Isn't it odd? The only people the Democraps want to take weapons from is law abiding citizens-never the violent criminals. The very criminals they empathize with, refuse to put in prison, release without bail or release before they serve a full sentence. Why do those on the left want to leave the law abiding defenseless, while enabling violent criminals?
It's not about preventing crime or mass murder. It's because they want to enslave us to their sordid agenda.
They also want to use it as a method to punish their political enemies of which we are. What better way is there than to punish us by outlawing our lawfully owned possessions? Turning us into felons for not complying. At the very least forcing us to give up what is rightfully ours if we do comply. Both are a direct violation of Ex Post Facto statutes that are written into the Constitution.
The Democrat Party is a party of petty little tyrants. There are no two ways about that. The Constitution and the concept of Constitutional law means nothing to them.
Quote:
"There are only a few laws in history that are universally applicable. One of these is that the ruling classes do not want the peasantry armed. They will do what they can to convince you that to be armed is dangerous. They will attempt to do this while they themselves are surrounded by armed body guards. Idiots will not notice this hypocrisy and sycophants will ignore it. Fools will surrender their arms in the name of "safety". They will insensibly surrender their liberty at the same time. This is how slaves are made."
Quote:
Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:
Art 1, § 9
This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
Art. 1 § 10.
This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
At a minimum, ex post facto prohibits legislatures from passing laws which retroactively criminalize behavior. ---https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto
Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power.
The prohibition of ex post facto laws was an imperative in colonial America. The Framers of the Constitution understood the importance of such a prohibition, considering the historical tendency of government leaders to abuse power. As Alexander Hamilton observed, "[i]t is easy for men … to be zealous advocates for the rights of the citizens when they are invaded by others, and as soon as they have it in their power, to become the invaders themselves." The desire to thwart abuses of power also inspired the Framers of the Constitution to prohibit bills of attainder, which are laws that inflict punishment on named individuals or on easily ascertainable members of a group without the benefit of a trial. Both ex post facto laws and bills of attainder deprive those subject to them of due process of law—that is, of notice and an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of life, liberty, or property.---https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ex+Post+Facto+Laws
Sure -- some extremists want to ban all guns but most Democrats in office and voters and independents and swing voters most definitely don't want to ban all guns.
I would love for responsible gun owners to sit down and have a real discussion about what can and can't be done.
I get it -- we all hate any restrictions to our 'freedoms' but we all have to endure some restrictions in order to live in a society.
The only way that can be done is if the anti firearm crowd would be truthful and utilize facts. Until that happens, no joy.
“The Assault Weapons Ban Act would prohibit the sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. At the same time, it grandfathers existing semiautomatic assault weapons and contains numerous protections for law enforcement and responsible gun owners, such as hunters, gun collectors, farmers, sport shooters, and those who use firearms for self-defense.
so it bans possession, but grandfathers the existing 450million weapons...... so in other words (IOW) it does nothing
That, or there is more to it that we aren't aware of.
I clearly stated I don't have strong feelings on this bill or on any gun control legislation because of the double speak from both sides and my lack of knowledge on guns.
So yeah -- the specific AR-15 gun wasn't banned but the last time there was a ban on assault weapons (not the AR-15) there was a significant recorded decline...so the feeling is that a ban would help. I clearly stated I am not debating that or in support of those feelings.
My post was not in support of legislation for gun control...or on any ban. I clearly stated that.
My post was to the 'feeling' a poster had that the goal seems to deny responsible gun owners the right to bear arms. I disagree. Not debating the merits of the legislation being proposed because I choose not to delve into a study of gun models, etc.....but the legislation goal is to make it harder for criminals and mentally unstable to get guns that can kill people so quickly.
SO WOW -- all you proved is what I stated - I don't know about guns....lol...but my feeling that the goal is to stop people who buy guns legally or illegally from shooting up schools, malls etc.....
There was never an actual "ban". So you think just having the word "ban" caused a decline in crime. Is that what you really think?
We have an actual assault weapon's ban here in California. I can still buy any one of them I want.
Lots of discussion on the lower numbers during the ban. NOTE I am not advocating that the ban was the sole reason why -- just that there is significant reporting, analysis that supports that argument. https://theconversation.com/did-the-...ells-us-184430 In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.
From 2004 onward:
The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.
We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active.
Form this site....That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
I would argue the sunset provision was allowed to expire in 2004 for a number of reasons. I have not read anywhere where people cited the ban was not effective.
Once again: Since the AWB didn't BAN anything, how would it be attributed to any type of reduction of anything?
This analysis is completely flawed. Maybe this person who did it also doesn't know that nothing was "banned?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
