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.
So for every gun related crime that takes place we lock up a bad guy and take his gun. I see this taking an awful long time before any kind of meaningful result could be achieved.
It is something, if it's new, and I don't disagree with it on principle.
However, don't we already laws like that? Or is it just harsher sentencing you're promoting?
You also have to consider the cost to us involved with locking people up. Easier, safer and cheaper (though risky in it's own right) to take away their guns before they've done something wrong if they're not willing to play by the rules and register.
How do you figure the "awfully long time?" Your idea is not going to take any awfully long time?
We do not have laws like this as Democrats are vehemently against this kind of law.
Please note in those existing laws, they are "sentence" not "minimum time served." A typical felon would barely serve 1/4 of the sentence before he's released. If we want it to be effective, it needs to be without parole.
Again, it would force LE to narrow the list substantially. They may for example be actively investigating someone where an arrest is imminent but they want to continue the investigation. This would be a trigger for arrest. Of course any arrest is going to require they have already broken the law.
Avoiding high capacity and/or quick repeat firing versions. Certainly if something is military-grade, it shouldn't be in the hands of common citizens.
What is "military grade"?
AR's and the like are not military grade. They are civilian versions that aesthetically look like military firearms but do not function like military rifles. The anti gun contingent and the media would like you to believe that our military uses these rifles.
What is "military grade"?
AR's and the like are not military grade. They are civilian versions that aesthetically look like military firearms but do not function like military rifles. The anti gun contingent and the media would like you to believe that our military uses these rifles.
Well it's good to know that they aren't exactly the same.
Obviously there are going to be gradations of all of this stuff, and I'm obviously no expert on the subject. What most Americans want are a ban on maximum kill automatic rifles. For the average citizen, twelve people aren't coming to get them at the same time, so it's not an argument of safety/defense/protection. If the primary purpose of the gun isn't protection or hunting, then I'd want to have them judged on a case-by-case basis.
Again, it would force LE to narrow the list substantially. They may for example be actively investigating someone where an arrest is imminent but they want to continue the investigation. This would be a trigger for arrest. Of course any arrest is going to require they have already broken the law.
So that background check denial basically just does jack squat then?
Avoiding high capacity and/or quick repeat firing versions. Certainly if something is military-grade, it shouldn't be in the hands of common citizens.
Again, what is high capacity ? Some Glock's come with a 15 rnd mag, a 33 is available.
What is the definition of "quick repeat firing" , as quickly as you can pull the trigger ?
What if your finger is faster than mine, does that mean you have an "assault" finger ?
What does "military-grade" mean ?
Mil-spec vs commercial in some rifle components is a difference in threading.
Well it's good to know that they aren't exactly the same.
Obviously there are going to be gradations of all of this stuff, and I'm obviously no expert on the subject. What most Americans want are a ban on maximum kill automatic rifles. For the average citizen, twelve people aren't coming to get them at the same time, so it's not an argument of safety/defense/protection. If the primary purpose of the gun isn't protection or hunting, then I'd want to have them judged on a case-by-case basis.
Automatic? Fully automatic or semi-automatic? Fully automatic has already been heavily regulated under the GAC and NFA for over half a century. Today, only the rich people have access to those. Screw the poor, right?
Semi-automatic consists of almost 90% of all guns.
The primary purpose of keeping and bearing arms is for self-defense against criminals and a tyrannical government. You tell me what would be sufficient to serve that purpose.
No, what Americans want is an end to gun crimes, not a useless ban on weapons because they look scary.
You are apparently living in a different country. The Democrats don't want to end gun crimes. They just want to ban guns.
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.
