It does not do that. It only banned future sales of certain weapons. Like the Brady bill. It does not limit what you can carry that you previously owned.
And you are welcome.
So since it ONLY restricts future purchases, that makes it ok? Again, it restricts the guns everyday, sane, law following citizens can purchase.
I am completely for strict background checks. But if someone passes those checks, they should be able to buy whatever they want.
If you can't see that restrictions on future gun purchases are a violation of the 2nd amendment, then you really are nuts.
I was mostly with you until the end. The Brady bill was not ruled unconstitutional (and it lapsed 10 years later). Not to mention the laws that restrict fully automatic weapons.
That being said, would you support everything else on that list if the gun ban were taken off?
Yes
Except for the last bullet point as well. Mental stability training and referrals shouldn't be part of a gun law.
There's already too many laws. Police politics decides who these laws are enforced upon...I stay out of the sun and I try not to ever get a tan. Most police emphasis is on strongly enforcing the $$$-making DUIs and car seizures/various other seizures at the moment.
I'll just start by saying I own a lot of guns and they are all hunting style weapons. I don't really ever shoot them, I don't really like them, and I don't consider them a prize possession. They aren't even in my will because I don't care who gets them. They are in the safe, when I go have at them. I have them because it's America, I'm a hunter, and I have the means to buy as many as I ever feel the need. I'm pro gun, not a gun nut.
Having said that the 2nd Amendment was singed into law in 1791. The closed cartridge bullet wasn't even really a thing in this country yet. People had muskets that fired one ball extremely inaccurately and took over a minute to load. A semi-automatic AR-15 would have been a weapon of mass destruction in 1791, period. No fucking way would the average person be allowed to legally have one in those times. It's the reason why you can't have a 7.62 mini-gun mounted to the side of your car today. It's why you can't buy an RPG right now.
Assault rifles, 9 round capacity shotguns, and handguns with a magazine over 10 rounds have no practical use for a law abiding citizen. Zero. Other than the kind of human being that would own a pit bull no one is using an assault rifle to hunt big game. No burglar needs over 10 rounds to take down. You can only have three to four rounds in your shotgun when you hunt for anything anywhere.
An AR-15 with a 30 round clip is a WMD as shown in the Colorado theater shooting. A massive pistol magazine is a WMD as shown in the Tucson shooting when Gabby Giffords was shot along with countless more. Kip Kinkle with a Ruger 10/22 and a banana clip fucked up Thurston High pretty badly.
Can a mass of people with bolt action rifles, like say a well regulated militia still fuck up an enemy foreign or domestic? Absolutely.
People don't want weapons that can kill a crowd of people without having to reload because of protection. They like them because they are cool. The people bitching about the ban of assault rifles and high capacity magazines wouldn't have their life changed in any real actual way if they were gone tomorrow.
Practical guns should never even be looked at when talking about gun control. A gun that can wipe out a theater full of people without a magazine change doesn't need to be in the public's hands.
I like the idea of giving each citizen the opportunity to own a tank and/or attack chopper. The commute to work would be a lot more badass and we could fuck with Canadians on the weekend.
Comments
People like you believe in the boogeyman and other shit that doesn't exist.
What you are whining about here daily in numerous threads has one end game and everyone knows it
Fuck off
Except for the last bullet point as well. Mental stability training and referrals shouldn't be part of a gun law.
Fuck off
It should be illegal to kill someone.
Having said that the 2nd Amendment was singed into law in 1791. The closed cartridge bullet wasn't even really a thing in this country yet. People had muskets that fired one ball extremely inaccurately and took over a minute to load. A semi-automatic AR-15 would have been a weapon of mass destruction in 1791, period. No fucking way would the average person be allowed to legally have one in those times. It's the reason why you can't have a 7.62 mini-gun mounted to the side of your car today. It's why you can't buy an RPG right now.
Assault rifles, 9 round capacity shotguns, and handguns with a magazine over 10 rounds have no practical use for a law abiding citizen. Zero. Other than the kind of human being that would own a pit bull no one is using an assault rifle to hunt big game. No burglar needs over 10 rounds to take down. You can only have three to four rounds in your shotgun when you hunt for anything anywhere.
An AR-15 with a 30 round clip is a WMD as shown in the Colorado theater shooting. A massive pistol magazine is a WMD as shown in the Tucson shooting when Gabby Giffords was shot along with countless more. Kip Kinkle with a Ruger 10/22 and a banana clip fucked up Thurston High pretty badly.
Can a mass of people with bolt action rifles, like say a well regulated militia still fuck up an enemy foreign or domestic? Absolutely.
People don't want weapons that can kill a crowd of people without having to reload because of protection. They like them because they are cool. The people bitching about the ban of assault rifles and high capacity magazines wouldn't have their life changed in any real actual way if they were gone tomorrow.
Practical guns should never even be looked at when talking about gun control. A gun that can wipe out a theater full of people without a magazine change doesn't need to be in the public's hands.
*snicker*... sure. YOU try it first.