Nothing being done. Another day for prayers

i don't pretend to be a gun expert, but yes i've shot an assault rifle-fully auto-and semi-auto ar-15 style. i'm pretty sure you know i was referring to semi auto ar-style with a high capacity magazine. there is no need for those. they're designed for war and killing people. that's it.

since you don't actually know what an assault rifle really is and that you can't own one anyway casts your comment into irrelevance considering most gun violence is committed with handguns



so ban those nasty "assault rifles" that don't exist and see what difference it makes?








is this an excuse or a solution?



still waiting for any sensible guns laws that would prevent this. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

i don't pretend to be a gun expert, but yes i've shot an assault rifle-fully auto-and semi-auto ar-15 style. i'm pretty sure you know i was referring to semi auto ar-style with a high capacity magazine. there is no need for those. they're designed for war and killing people. that's it. Originally Posted by pxmcc

no you haven't unless you did so illegally or shot a full auto assault rifle owned by a FFL dealer.

so which is it?

you like many on the left think anything that is semi-auto is an assault rifle.


you are wrong

i have 2 nephews in the Seals
and my little bro was an mh-60 aircraft commander before he retired from the Navy. those dudes are on a different level.

legal? no. do i care? no. do i think ar-s should be legal? nope.

you hold the trigger down. you don't have to be einstein to shoot fully auto. you just have to be a little crazy, which i am. and my peeps have what i'd call psychotic discipline.

back on topic. why should ARs be legal for civilians? for what possible purpose?

no you haven't unless you did so illegally or shot a full auto assault rifle owned by a FFL dealer.

so which is it?

you like many on the left think anything that is semi-auto is an assault rifle.


you are wrong Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Again I ask: If we assume that ownership of "weapons of war" or even all firearms is prohibited to civilians . . .how would those guns already in the legal possession of citizens be collected?

And then, how would those firearms not legally owned by gang members and career criminals be collected?

For the sake of this discussion, please ignore the technical issues of our legal system.ASsume that it may be done legally . . .now, how

simple. gun buybacks. undercover ops for gang bangers. full mfg liability for any new assault rifles sold which result in the commission of a crime. the mass slaughter gun scourge is over. sellers are going to do serious due diligence before another AR-15 is sold.

better yet, make the sale of ar-15s a felony. no more assault rifles sold. no more mass slaughter. and make getting a gun license harder than a DL.

still gun deaths but nowhere near as bad.

present system is planned insanity.

Again I ask: If we assume that ownership of "weapons of war" or even all firearms is prohibited to civilians . . .how would those guns already in the legal possession of citizens be collected?

And then, how would those firearms not legally owned by gang members and career criminals be collected?

For the sake of this discussion, please ignore the technical issues of our legal system.ASsume that it may be done legally . . .now, how Originally Posted by ICU 812

^^^^

Ok, I get all that . . .sounds good.

What about all those folks who don't want to give up their firearms? How will they be identified and forced to surrender teem?

My Dad was a Kennedy liberal and center of the road straight arrow kind of guy. Back in the 1860s there was much debate about gun control following the three major assignations of that decade, JFK, RFK and MLK. No one knew what the new law would really look ike. Gun ban=s and confiscation were seriously discussed.

One evening I found my father hammering away at a short coffin looking box in his basement "workshop". Now Dad was not a handyman or craftsmen. This was unusual. What was he doing?

Well at that time, he had two shotguns, a .22 rifle and a "spiritized" surplus German Mauser rifle for Deer hunting. This last one was a no-shit "Weapon of war" from WW-II. If confiscation was to become the law of the land, he told me that these guns would go into the box and the box would go into the ground behind the Peony bushes.

It is now some fifty five years later on and, based on the many YouTube videos out there, a lot of folks still feel that way.

What can e done about them?

The gun was owned by his stepmother a Leon County Sheriff's deputy.With a srewball kid in the house keeping the weapon secured probably would have been the responsible thing to do.I would expect a civil lawsuit by the victims families

^^^

Ok, and so what should be done about that?

Waiting period and background checks.


Gun owners should be licensed and pay an annual tax for assault weapons. https://thegunzone.com/what-is-an-as...ording-to-atf/



Disclaimer: I have multiple guns including an old school assault rifle.

Good stuff . . .So, you would create requirements for firearms in general that are similar to those for CCW permits in effect now in many states?

Would that be a national law?

Would that stand up to a 2A challenge, or the equal protection clause?

Would kit stad p to a challenge on the basis of civil rights laws concerning discrimination?

Just looking for a workable approach here.

****************************** ******

However, I'd like to again ask those who favor a ban on private ownership of firearms to explain how this ban would be enforced against non-complient gun owners?

To interject some reason on this topic, the murder rate per capita is 6 ish per mil in the UK, US is about 10X That. But, once you remove the crime murder statistics during a crime, IE gang related, narco related etc, that drops to a similar rate of 10ish per mil. Accounting for similar variations in the UK only drops that to 4.5 per mil. So violent crime is bigger there than here.

Further remove dense population centers with urban decay, IE chicago and the like, that drops even further. For 90% of the USA, we live in a safer space than the UK and other like countries with heavy gun control.

This ties into the topic with the understanding that criminals will be criminals. Add all the gun laws you like and they will still murder, you and each other, in similar rates. Only the methodology changes, not the outcome.

I will absolutely agree that it will reduce mass shootings, as most of those are perpetrated by mentally ill people, that had easy access to a gun. Although most are carried out with handguns.

Food for thought.

Good stuff . . .So, you would create requirements for firearms in general that are similar to those for CCW permits in effect now in many states?

Would that be a national law?

Would that stand up to a 2A challenge, or the equal protection clause?

Would kit stad p to a challenge on the basis of civil rights laws concerning discrimination?

Just looking for a workable approach here.

****************************** ******

However, I'd like to again ask those who favor a ban on private ownership of firearms to explain how this ban would be enforced against non-complient gun owners? Originally Posted by ICU 812

Repealing 2A would be a good start

Repealing 2A would be a good start Originally Posted by jayjaychrome

That would be the first step . .so get to it!

Next: What would be the process for confiscating firearms from non-compliant citizens?

...i'm pretty sure you know i was referring to semi auto ar-style with a high capacity magazine. there is no need for those. they're designed for war and killing people. that's it. Originally Posted by pxmcc

Gonna hit a few other comments, but let us start with yours. If you and other uniformed people would be so kind as to show us underlings the words:

• Bunny Rabbit or
• Deer or
• Antelope or
• Game Birds or
• Any Other frick'n Animal

As they appears in any the following:

• Declaration of Independence
• US Constitution
• Bill of Rights
• Federalist Papers
• Any other writings of the Founding Fathers

That would be great...

Let us be crystal clear -- The Second Amendment was very specifically about, and only about, weapons of war. Period, end of discussion. Game Over.

Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Just to be clear, a comma, as used at the time, was basically equivalent to an and. Besides, we've all seen the Mel Gibson (Ambassador to L.A.) movie, The Patriot. AmmIrite? If said weapons could also put dinner on the table -- Double Bonus!

Don't believe me?!? Take it from the Billy Mays of his time, i.e. Alexander Hamilton, who authored 85 Federalist papers, in an effort to sell ratification of the US Constitution to the then thirteen States. 85 commercials to do so, plus one Bill of Rights. Otherwise, there was No Deal to be had.

See Federalist 29 below:

Concerning the Militia
From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 10, 1788
HAMILTON

...THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy...

In point of actual fact, the States were entirely against a standing army riding heard over sovereign Americans. Say! Did you catch that bit about "invasion" above? Welcome to today.

So to another area; machine guns, i.e. full-auto: Yes Virginia, they are legal to own. They are very expensive to acquire (typically $15K+), require that a certain part, the seer, be manufactured before 1985 and require a tax, i.e. tax stamp, which takes over 2 years to process, in a good year.

Frankly, their functionality is questionable in my mind as they spew about 90-120 rounds in a skinny minute and are very difficulty to control with much accuracy. Personally, I would say no to full-auto, so long as we can have select fire, i.e. 3 round burst and single round as an option, known as select fire. Doubtless, you've seen the rage-heads spray'n and pray'n over their heads with their AKs without to much as a cursory sighting in?

Some say "High Capacity" like it means something. What about 7 rounds? That seems reasonable. AmIrite?!? Alrighty then. So a 12 gauge shot gun with 3 1/2" shells of 00-buck, should be fine, even though that would limit it to 150+ yards, with 9 30 caliber slugs per shot x 7 rounds. What about a 20 round drum, for kicks?

But my own recommendation is learning the many laws concerning idiot management before one tries to wrap a couple brain cells around basic weapons, their designs and practical intended purpose.

As to buy-backs; I paraphrase Charlton Heston: Cold dead hand beotches.

^^you proved my point sir. thank you! if you're a member of a well-regulated militia, a.k.a., the National Guard, then you are authorized to have weapons of war.

notice it doesn't say the same about every clown and his brother..

maybe you should propose a Constitutional Amendment to the 2nd Amendment more to your liking:

"so that every clown and his brother can have weapons of war, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.."