Surely you can show some kind of evidence that when what you term to be ‘assault weapons’ were legal they were used commonly in crime, right? You’re going to show us that ‘real cost and the threat’ aren’t you?
Or are you just going to keep saying those exist without ever saying what they are and where you came up with those ideas?
We’ve heard you say hundreds of times that there is too much ‘risk’ or ‘danger’ or ‘threat’ or ‘cost’. So, it’s put up or shut up time.
Where’s your evidence?
P.S. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may only charge the dealer $2 for access to their system, but every dealer can charge customers any amount of money. The least I’ve been charged is $5, and the most $20.
Goddammit, minty, you keep blithely asserting this as though it were undisputed fact. I haven’t seen one cite from you for the following propositions:
Assault weapons (as defined in the act) are any more dangerous than other semiautomatic weapons, i.e., they have superior performance characteristics;
“Assault weapons” represent anything approaching a significant portion of the guns used in gun-related crime;
Your absurd claims that “[a]ssault weapons are designed for taking out groups of people at a distance through withering fire” and “are intentionally designed to kill assloads of people.”
And you repeatedly talk in terms that, at the very least, sound like you mean fully-automatic fire, even though the law in question clearly does not apply to fully automatic weapons.
Seriously, minty, put up or shut up. You keep saying these weapons represent an especially dangerous class of weaponry – that the risks of allowing these weapons in the marketplace outweigh the benefits. But you never provide any evidence that these overwhelming risks you drone on about exist anywhere outside of your own mind.
What guns, ( by style and caliber please .(410 single shot bolt action shout guns) only if the person can pass the machine gun background test? and post he bonds required for that? and have that lic. rescinded without due process as it can be now? This is how you think it should be for gun ownership? (I turn 21 or some government decided age) and I’m allowed to be background checked before I am allowed to posses a gun? Is that your stance? No possession, no shooting, no hunting until a certain age and a background check? Explain please.
You still did not give a list of permissible guns. You can’t just say those that are not assault weapons because they are all assault weapons. ( every single one can and has been used in assaulting)
You are KING
Spend 3 minutes making a list of what a US citizen should be allowed to own, you know, keep in their house in the city, country, back woods, Alaska bush, because all are places in the US of A. Or is there to be restrictions (in your kingdom) that are geography controlled?
All you have said it you want real tough government control and background checks and $$$ bonds, a governmental right to remove a persons guns on a whim.
Actually, Dewey, according to this U.S. Dept. of Justice webpage that Whack-a-mole posted a few messages back, most U.S. homicides commited with a firearm are commited with a handgun.
(And I’d bet that almost all of those hanguns did not qualify as “assault weapons” under the law.)
tracer: yeah, I know. I wanted to cover all the bases.
There’s an old lawyer saying: if you’ve got the facts on your side, argue facts; of you’ve got the law on your side, argue the law; if neither, pound the table. Since we’re discussing the propriety of a law, “the law” isn’t on anyone’s side, so we’re left with facts – and minty is pounding the table.
Actually, I already posted strong evidence, straight from George W. Bush’s Department of Justice, that assault weapons are currently being used by a whole lot of criminals. Page 1. Look for the link that says Firearm Use By Offenders.
Seriously, Dewey, use your head a little. The M-16 was not designed for home defense or target practice or opening cans of soup; it was designed for killing North Vietnamese soldiers in armed combat. The only thing “absurd” about that contention is your obstinate refusal to acknowledge the intended use of the weapon and its cousins, as compared with, for instance, that Remington 700 somebody mentioned above.
I dunno. Give me a $100,000 research grant and a year to study the issue, and I’ll be happy to report back to you. In the meantime, just accept that I’m happy to draw the line somewhere in the vicinity of the line drawn in the current assault weapons ban.
Where on earth did I say anything about an age limit? All I said was universal licensing. Since you asked, however, I’m happy to permit minors (under 18) to shoot and hunt under the supervision of a competent adult, without any kind of background check on the kid.
Huh? I have said no such thing, and I haven’t got the slightest clue where you got that from anything in my posts.
No, there not at odds with each other.
Of the people who commit acts of domsetic violence, the majority would do so wether they had alchohol or not.
That said, there are still a large number of people who commit acts of domestic violence only because they are intoxicated. They are just not the majority.
There is not a single cause to all of domestic violence, and womens shelters are carefull not to let the victims blame their abusers behavior on alchohol, or mental illness because that increase the likelyhood that they will go back to the abuser because “It wasnt his fault”
I remember one time I was talking to my sister after she had just come back from the police accademy where she was teaching a class on the cuases of domestic violence.
I asked her to what the causes of domestic violence and she started listing off culture, alchohol abuse, home enviroment when the abuser was growing up etc…
I said “You forgot mouthy bitches”…
And computers were designed for military purposes originally too. So what. Whats funny about your argument is that Remington 700 are comonly used for sniper duty(although they are designed for hunting), AR15’s are most comonly used for hunting and target shooting. Your not going to buy a 1000 dollar rifle to rob a convienience store. (M16’s are illegal to own…I’m assumeing you meant the semi auto version).
Dareline Washington D.C. 2004, The president signed new legislation making the assault weapons pan permanent. There were several new additions to the list.
In the same signing ceremony he also signed legislation requiring attorneys to file enviromental impact statements before beginning any litigation. Citeing the need to perserve peoples natural enviroments he said this will go a long way to making this a kinder gentler nation.
If English-style gun control resulted in a comparable murder rate in the United States, it would be an unqualified success. It actually works out to about 520 gun murders in a population the size of the U.S.–well below our actual number of 8,000-10,000 annual gun homicides.
How close is somewhere? You are a lawyer and so your ‘somewhere’ is a bit suspect IMO…
You said the same as a FFL ( machinegun qualified and licensable = FFL )
You said the same conditions as an FFL and so, a young person can hunt? How, they are not allowed to have guns? Under your conditions, I can’t give an gun to an unchecked person much less sell it but it is OK to loan it to a kid as long as I go with him? :smack:
Elderly couple living in the country can not pass an FFL check or qualify to hold an FFL. So you are agreeing that they should have their guns removed? You plan on the response time of the sheriff to protect them?
Basically, you say the second amendment does not apply, we must all have an FFL to have any fire arm?
You are not for total gun control? :smack: Sure sounds like it to me… Ever try to get a FFL? If it is that easy, I rather think every NRA member would have one.
Did you know the government can refuse to give you one just on the fact that there are several others in you geographical area? This is not absolute control? No, it is not a total ban but it is absolute control with no redress.
Gus, seriously man, you’ve got to try and read my posts a little better. I called for “licensing comparable to existing federal machinegun regulations for assault weapons,” not all firearms.
Oh, okay… did not seem that clear to me but I am not a lawyer…
Just so I know what to expect, if they (government ) move the line closer to the single shot .22 you will go along with that or you will fight against that? You personally, do you care?
( closer say is all semi-automatics of any size? rifle or pistol. )
Not at all. You want to restrict our sport, when we have shown several examples of other recrational pasttimes that cause much more damage…But you wont respond to that because that would require critical reasoning on your part.
Well, you didn’t explicitly answer my question, but it sounds like your position is that the government should ban anything where the costs of that thing outweigh the benefits. Do I have your position correct?
