I will support the reinstatement of the 1994 'assault weapon ban' if...

... you can show:

1: It would have stopped the Newtown shooting
2: It will stop another Newtown shooting
3: Does not violate the 2nd amendment

If you cannot show thes ethree things, please explain why you support it.

 

I won't support the renewal of the ban regardless of any evidence.
I already know that it violates the second amendment and that there is no way it can keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals. It is highly unlikely (never say never) that I will ever own an AR-15 or similar weapon (I am a reloader and I hate chasing brass) but I will fight to the death to support the right to own one. I will also fight to the death to support the 9 other rights that are listed in the Bill Of Rights. Why? It's quite simple, if government can take away or restrict one right they can do the same thing to all of our rights. These are supposed to be "God given rights" and the government, the last time I looked, hasn't become powerful enough to take power from him.

 

There are plenty of Americans who do support it now, Republicans too. You extremists just won't have a leg to stand on when it happens. Those babies did nothing to deserve what happened to them. The mother had the guns in a home where a mentally deranged child also resided and something must be done.

The assault weapons ban will happen, nobody is forgetting what happened to those kids.

 

Might wanna read this:

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice
Christopher S. Koper (Principal Investigator)
Daniel J. Woods and Jeffrey A. Roth
Jerry Lee Center of Criminology
University of Pennsylvania
3814 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104

In short, what your emotions tell you about the sensibility if banning assault weapons might not yield any actual results. Do it anyway though?

 

Seems there are millions of people on "the fringe" who disagree with you.

And if you have to resort to calling someone who disagrees with you an "extremist" then I doubt your ability to even consider that rational people can have an opinion opposite of your own.

and please give me a legal definition of "mentally deranged" that would allow the state to judicially prevent her from owning firearms, being that she had no criminal record, and more than likely passed all the background checks required by the feds AND the state of conneticuit, a notoriously anti gun state.

 

1 and 2 are "if" and who knows.

3, such a ban will not violate the Constitution. Heller 1(F)

 

Can you show:

1: It would have stopped the Newtown shooting
2: It will stop another Newtown shooting
3: Does not violate the 2nd amendment

If you cannot show these three things, please explain why you support it.

 

If you cannot show it would have been, and will be, effective, in stopping such incidents how can you show that the ban is pursuant to a compelling state interest and is the least restrictive means to that end?

Show this to be true,

 

Sooo..

You freely admit that you -cannot- show how the ban meets a compelling state interest and that you -cannot- show how a ban does not violate the Constitution.

Thank you for playing.