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.
Those are already heavily restricted from the general public.
Semi automatic sporting rifles such as the AR-15 and variants of similar type are NOT "Assault Rifles" .
Yes. They are but as I stated in my first comment, criminals can get their hands on such weapons. Believe me or don't, it doesn't matter to me but as someone who spent years working in the criminal justice system and dealing with issues like this, I have first hand knowledge that you CAN get a hold of such a weapon if you know where to go and who to ask. I'm not challenging the intelligence of most people and their knowledge of such things, just sharing my experience with the issue.
Well, as stated, the AR-15 is not an assault weapon. What military uses that as an assault weapon? Secondly, it is the Bill of Rights for us Citizens.....not the Bill of Needs.
Why are you trying to make my comment about the military? I said nothing about them in my comments. I'm speaking about ordinary non-military citizens.
Why are you trying to make my comment about the military? I said nothing about them in my comments. I'm speaking about ordinary non-military citizens.
Then let us clarify that you are not talking about the AR-15 or any other semi automatic version of military weapons such as the Uzi, "Ak-47", the AR-10 (now there is an interesting situation), and such. That is correct, right, you are not talking about such?
Yes. They are but as I stated in my first comment, criminals can get their hands on such weapons. Believe me or don't, it doesn't matter to me but as someone who spent years working in the criminal justice system and dealing with issues like this, I have first hand knowledge that you CAN get a hold of such a weapon if you know where to go and who to ask. I'm not challenging the intelligence of most people and their knowledge of such things, just sharing my experience with the issue.
Yes.
Criminals can get their hands on AR-15s.
Criminals can get their hands on all kinds of guns.
You don't actually see criminals using machine guns much in the real world outside of Hollywood though.
Because they're very expensive, use up tons of ammo very quickly and aren't particularly accurate.
So....what's your point?
Take away every AR on the planet and criminals will simply use a different gun.
The most commonly used gun by criminals is actually cheap, Saturday night special type handguns.
And if you think other types of guns aren't as capable of shooting mass numbers of people, as an AR then you don't know much about guns.
The AR-15 actually makes an excellent home defense weapon.
Much better choice for many people than a shotgun.
Definite slippery slope there. For instance, my mom is most likely going to have to talk with a therapist here pretty soon. My dad, her husband of 52 years is dying from leukemia , and probably won't make it the next couple of months, her brother is dying of colon cancer, he has weeks left, and her 96 year old mom will have to be put into a home, which isn't going to be good for her. She, my mom has mentioned she would like to talk with someone. So, because of this, you think she should not be able to have a firearm ?
Here is the question on the 4473, lying on this is breaking federal law.
NOTICES, INSTRUCTIONS, AND DEFINITIONS
Question 11.f.
Adjudicated as a Mental Defective:A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.
Committed to a Mental Institution:
A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use.
The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.
EXCEPTION:Under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution in a State proceeding is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if the person has been granted relief by the adjudicating/committing State pursuant to a qualifying mental health relief from disabilities program. Also, a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution by a department or agency of Federal Government is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if either: (a) the person’s adjudication or commitment was set-aside or expunged by the adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the agency; (c) the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication/commitment; or (d) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code; (e) the person was granted relief from the adjudicating/committing agency pursuant to a qualified mental health relief from disabilities program.
Persons who fall within one of the above exceptions should answer “no” to question 11.f.
This exception to an adjudication or commitment by a Federal department or agency does not apply to any person who was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Around here all it takes is for someone to lie and say that you are a threat, no proof needed, and you can be locked up for a 72 hour hold for evaluation. There is no requirement to prove any of the allegations to take your freedom away from you.
Rapid fire assault weapons. That's what I was referring to, Tamara. Military personnel should be the only ones using such weapons. Citizens like you and me have no need for anything like that.
Are we making up definitions now ?
And this is why solid discussions can't be had, one side has zero knowledge on the subject.
anyone with half a brain already KNOWS. That law abiding citizens won't be the cause of what's going on. It's the nut jobs, Muslims with an agenda (not all of them of course) and others that are not all there that will continue to abuse the use of guns. Biden and his clan of course would like you to think it's ANYONE with a gun. Yet another way to take control of an entire society, remove their guns. It's happened before in history with other countries. We had better hope NOT here
That is exactly the issue. Those nut jobs - and I agree with that assessment - were law abiding just before they decided to kill. That in lies the problem. How do we make it so the nut jobs don't get the guns.
I never understood how some people can live in a country with daily mass shooting and say, "That's fine."
To add insult to injury, it's the same group who wants to ban abortion and weed, as if people aren't just going to go around the law to get it. But with guns, somehow we can't do anything because "criminals will just go around the law and get them anyway."
.
There is less crime when responsible citizens are armed because the consequence of trying to victimize them becomes dire
Universal background checks are have been found to be massively popular in pretty much every poll ever made. They're only blocked because certain Republicans are scared of losing their checks from the NЯA.
They're popular and already in place. So basically you're lying
And this is why solid discussions can't be had, one side has zero knowledge on the subject.
No. It was simply the term I used. I forgot that around here, everyone must use exact descriptions and meanings or they aren't taken seriously. Seriously, some people are wound a little too tight. That's the main reason friendly discussions don't often happen in the POC section of CD. smh
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.
I said nothing about them in my comments. I'm speaking about ordinary non-military citizens.
