I was simplifying. Just pointing out that assault rifle does not equal assault weapon. In the vast majority of cases and with the vast majority of gun owners it is not legal to own an assault rifle.
In 25 states you fill out a Form 4 and get (2) passport size photos, (2) fingerprint cards, (1) citizenship authorization, and a transfer tax check made payable to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms . All legal if you are able to legally own a handgun.
How do you define a vast majority?
The Black Friday shopping day after Thanksgiving last season set a record of over 129,000 NICS background checks for firearms purchases, in one day. One day.
Guns are very popular here and there is waning support for more controls. It’s a “hot potato” issue that no one is going to pick up, especially in an election year. There will be some noise, and then we will be on to the next news cycle. Gun control is a non-starter, it ain’t going anywhere.
And it’s correct; R.P. McMurphy was recommending an annual tax of a grand per assault rifle. Given your 10,000 estimate, that’s a nice chunk of change for the gubmint right there.
I was refering to the number of privately held AR15s.
It is a hard number to track down, as lower receivers and kits are assembled into guns sometimes, and other times remain a “project in a box”.
Whats not right is $1000 for an AR15, whole rifles can be bought for less than $800, so a used one is worth less.
I guess it wasn’t too bad until they moved the medical/graduate school to Anschutz. Now they got freaky graduate students with their freaky ideas screwing up the place.
I want to Pit the several members of the armed forces who, rather than setting off the tactical nuclear warheads issued to everybody in the service in case a nut starts shooting up a theater, chose to die like common Batman fans.
The constitution doesn’t mention anything about placing restrictions on caliber, magazine capacity, etc when giving the right to bear arms. It is ridiculous to think that the US constitution guarantees the right to bear any form of arms we want. We already accept that a civilian can’t have an armed military jet or a 2,000lb bomb, for example. It is all just a question of degrees but it is a given there will always be limits.
The Mexican constitution also guarantees the right to bear arms for home defense but places strict limits on carrying weapons outside of the home, and leaves it to the federal government to set restrictions on caliber, magazine capacity, etc. Guns are purchased from the army and there are limits on caliber and magazine capacity and, other than illegal guns brought in from the US throwing a wildcard into the statistics, that seems to keep a pretty good balance of a need to defend oneself while preventing citizens from arming themselves to the teeth. For example it is legal to own a .380 pistol but not a 9mm (same diameter round, for all you “a .223 is basically a .22” folks - they are still very different weapons).
It doesn’t really hinder anyone’s ability to defend their home if they are limited to a .380 instead of a 9mm. If you can’t do the job with a .380 pistol or .30 caliber rifle or 12 gauge shotgun you are probably in big trouble anyway. It is an action movie fueled illusion to think that if you just could have a little more firepower than that you could outgun the bad guys if they attack your home wearing armor and using higher caliber guns. Except in very unusual circumstances defending yourself isn’t going to involve a prolonged firefight where the winner is ultimately the one with more firepower. And it is a good idea to remember a significant portion of the general population are themselves either bad guys, stupid guys, or insane guys. Allowing all of them to have mightier weapons than the hypothetical bad guys who might attack you makes it a more dangerous world for everyone overall.
While all Mexican residents are constitutionally allowed to buy a gun, the majority of gun murders in Mexico are committed with illegal guns purchased in the US. If guns of higher caliber and magazines of higher capacity were banned in the US there would still be murders in the US and in Mexico for sure, but common sense and the actual numbers indicate there would be significantly fewer. If you want to defend your home a simple shotgun is the best weapon you can have in the majority of circumstances. Higher caliber weapons and high capacity magazines are good for prolonged firefights, trying to beat an entrenched, armored opponent military style, or for committing mass murders in public places, but they aren’t usually required for effective basic self-defense.
Hypothetical bans could be enforced through the halt of sales and manufacturing and a slow, ongoing program of buybacks and trade ins offered to existing owners with strict enforcement of the law and severe penalties as violations presented themselves. There would be no need for a mass door to door roundup, or armed standoffs with the military. If it ever came to ‘civil war’ in the face of such a reasonable program it would be carried out by the most extreme and dangerous elements of the population and they would deserve what they got when the military was forced to intervene.
The problem is, what you are saying is too reasonable. No politician is ever allowed to put forth such a sensible argument because they end up getting shouted down. Until it is possible to have an actual dialogue on this topic nothing will be accomplished.
No, it was totally incorrect. He was responding to Elvis, who was saying that he might be in favor of compensating gun owners in the event of a mass confiscation.
Farmer Jane, glad you are back.
Could you tell me how one “rigs” a semi auto into a full auto, as you speculated back thread?
Or will you admit you have no working knowledge of how firearms work?
What you are saying is totally insane. It’s like saying that a Formula 1 engine is just like a Toyota Camry engine because they both have a 2.4 liter displacement.
So it’s a conflation of the posts about the $1,000 tax and the estimated number of AR-15s out there. Sheesh, even FE3O4ENAIL said “OK,I can see that interpretation.”
