Fair&Balanced
Gold Member
- Apr 12, 2016
- 8,137
- 1,026
- 245
- Banned
- #161
Yes, for what it's worth, I said semi-automatic weapons and I meant just that. Including hand guns. And after you so kindly reminded me on the importance of using our words carefully, you start flinging around "assault weapons" again? If you don't like Congress's definition, don't use it. I'm sorry you think I'm off the rails, but guns that can deliver 20-30 bullets per minute are not necessary for Joe Citizen. You can't convince me otherwise.I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection,I agree wholeheartedly that we should be enforcing the laws with vigor. I don't know what the problem is, but if it's anything like around here, cops are pretty busy just putting out the local fires with more and more limited manpower. We've had a bad economy, ya know? Don't know if that might have something to do with it.The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.
In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.
And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.
Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.
And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise. I know many gun owners, including in my own family, and I understand that there are many responsible gun owners out there who respect the sanctity of human life and do not misuse their killing machine. I can actually agree that we have a right to choose self protection, but America has gone way overboard. It's as much the fault of the firearm manufacturers and their greed as it is individuals. They've had one of the best marketing campaigns out there for years--better than tobacco in its day.
And when only the criminals are armed you'll feel safer? Why?
Where did you get that from? Limit gun ownership and ban semiautomatic weapons/replaceable magazines.
I don't get you sometimes you seem reasonable and willing to look at facts and sometimes you are just off the rails.
Look at these facts concerning assault weapons and come back again and tell me how important it is that we ban semi automatic weapons (unless you actually call to ban semi automatic hand guns as well, not just a return of the previous ban.
Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Assault Weapons
For a variety of reasons.
The big black scary assault weapon is RARELY used in criminal activity.
But when it is, how many innocent people does it kill?
You want to ban hand guns as well ? LOL
I ask you, for the 12th time in this thread, why do you think banning semi automatic weapons would make them any harder for criminals to get than banning drugs made it harder to get drugs? That is a simple question that of course destroys your entire argument, and that is why you won't address it.
The ONLY thing you would accomplish by banning semi automatic weapons would be to create a black market for semi automatic weapons, ESPECIALLY sine you liberals so stupidly refuse to close the southern border.