CDZ Another Question for Gun Owners

[Howey]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

 

[Crixus]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Only the political pets of the likes of Bamma and Klinton and Schumer. Everything you mentioned would have had zero impact on any mass shooting including the one in Dallas perpetrated by a methed out racist pig.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

Other laws don't hinder the ability of citizens to defend themselves.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

Other laws don't hinder the ability of citizen's to defend themselves.

Neither would this one done properly, you have never defended yourself with a gun, much less an assault style weapon. You need home protection? Shot gun, covered, and much better.

 

[Defiant1]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

It's already illegal to shoot police officers with any type of weapon.

And there are reports the shooter didn't use an "assault" weapon.
Whatever that means.

 

[DarkFury]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

Other laws don't hinder the ability of citizen's to defend themselves.

Neither would this one done properly, you have never defended yourself with a gun, much less an assault style weapon. You need home protection? Shot gun, covered, and much better.

If someone is holding a knife to the throat of a loved one and you have a shotgun how do you plan on hitting one and NOT the other?

 

[Crixus]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

Other laws don't hinder the ability of citizen's to defend themselves.

Neither would this one done properly, you have never defended yourself with a gun, much less an assault style weapon. You need home protection? Shot gun, covered, and much better.

Not really. Many woman and people of small stature have a hard time with shot guns. My Mother and Wife being a couple who cant manage them. An AR15 on the other hand they can manage. I have defended my self with a gun. .556 does nasty things to flesh.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

Other laws don't hinder the ability of citizen's to defend themselves.

Neither would this one done properly, you have never defended yourself with a gun, much less an assault style weapon. You need home protection? Shot gun, covered, and much better.

Yes, it would, laws don't prevent criminals from using assault weapons, but it would prevent citizens from using them for self protection. Assault weapons are more effective than a shot gun, show guns fire 1-2 shots, then have to be reloaded, and won't shoot as far. I also just pointed out that criminals will ignore the law. So, you're hindering citizens and doing nothing to criminals. the law is counterproductive.

 

[Silent Warrior]

Since it is already against the law to shoot people, including police, why would you think someone willing to break that law would suddenly decide to obey the law against owning an assault rifle. By the way, assault rifles are capable of automatic fire and are already illegal to anyone without a very hard to get FFL. You want to ban anything that looks like an assault rifle.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

Other laws don't hinder the ability of citizen's to defend themselves.

Neither would this one done properly, you have never defended yourself with a gun, much less an assault style weapon. You need home protection? Shot gun, covered, and much better.

If someone is holding a knife to the throat of a loved one and you have a shotgun how do you plan on hitting one and NOT the other?

And your answer is an assault weapon, please.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

Other laws don't hinder the ability of citizen's to defend themselves.

Neither would this one done properly, you have never defended yourself with a gun, much less an assault style weapon. You need home protection? Shot gun, covered, and much better.

Yes, it would, laws don't prevent criminals from using assault weapons, but it would prevent citizens from using them for self protection. Assault weapons are more effective than a shot gun, show guns fire 1-2 shots, then have to be reloaded, and won't shoot as far. I also just pointed out that criminals will ignore the law. So, you're hindering citizens and doing nothing to criminals. the law is counterproductive.

Might as well jetison laws against murder, folks keep doing it, same, "logic". I own, I carry, unlike most of you, I don't claim to know the answer to what is a societal problem. But many of you will never even consider a conversation, so here we will remain for what I feel to be forever. I've already accepted that here in america, this is the best we can do, and mass murders are just a way of life in american society - even of school children. That's just who we've chosen to be as a people and what we;re willing to abide with.

And then next time we'll act shocked and have the same "conversations" again while accepting this as part of american culture.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

A discussion based on an outright lie is meaningless.

Aside from a few high-up officials, motivated more by politics than by concern for the responsibilities that go with their jobs, the police have never been supportive of the fraudulent “assault weapon” bans and restrictions.

And even if they were, so what?

If police were begging for the authority to burst into people's homes, and conduct invasive searches, without a warrant, and without probable cause, the answer should be exactly the same. Whatever interests the police or other agents of government might claim, they do not take precedence over the explicitly-affirmed Constitutional rights of the people.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

They have?

Do you have some proof of this "begging"?

BTW people even criminals do not walk the streets with "assault" rifles. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals as they are more easily concealable

 

[Skull Pilot]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

Since no law stops criminal from committing crimes we seem to do exactly that.

All any law can do is state an illegal activity and set a punishment.

We already have thousands of gun laws on the books what we need now is to enforce them and add draconian sentences with no parole for any gun crime

 

[Skull Pilot]

So called "assault weapons" account for a very small fraction of all murders committed with a gun

 

[Howey]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

A discussion based on an outright lie is meaningless.

Aside from a few high-up officials, motivated more by politics than by concern for the responsibilities that go with their jobs, the police have never been supportive of the fraudulent “assault weapon” bans and restrictions.

And even if they were, so what?

If police were begging for the authority to burst into people's homes, and conduct invasive searches, without a warrant, and without probable cause, the answer should be exactly the same. Whatever interests the police or other agents of government might claim, they do not take precedence over the explicitly-affirmed Constitutional rights of the people.

Perhaps you

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

They have?

Do you have some proof of this "begging"?

BTW people even criminals do not walk the streets with "assault" rifles. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals as they are more easily concealable

Perhaps you two could read this:

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

The IACP has long advocated for the adoption of common sense policies that will assist in reducing gun violence. These proposals are drawn from the association resolutions and policy positions adopted by the over 21,000 members of the IACP over the past several years. The items listed below are not comprehensive—for the full position paper, please visit http://www.theiacp.org/firearms.


Armor-Piercing Ammunition. The IACP supports legislation and policies that will prohibit the sale or transfer of armor-piercing ammunition. In addition, the IACP believes that the process utilized to determine whether a round of ammunition is armor piercing should include performance-based testing conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Assault Weapons Ban. First passed in 1994, the federal assault weapons ban (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) required domestic gun manufacturers to stop production of semiautomatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. While the ban was in place, it was remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against police officers. The IACP has been a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban since 1992.

Body Armor. The IACP supports legislation to prohibit the mail order sale of bulletproof vests and body armor to all individuals except sworn or certified law enforcement officers. In recent years, the safety of law enforcement officers has often been compromised due to the possession of body armor and bulletproof vests by the criminals they were attempting to apprehend. The IACP believes that the sale, transfer, or acquisition of these items should be conducted in person in order to make it more difficult for criminals to acquire and use these items while committing crimes of violence.

Concealed Weapons. The IACP continues to oppose any federal legislative proposals that would either pre-empt, mandate, or both pre-empt and mandate the liberalization of individual states’ carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) laws pertaining to the carrying of concealed weapons in other states without meeting that state’s requirements. This applies to private citizens as well as active, former, and federal, tribal, state, and local law enforcement personnel. The IACP believes it is essential that state governments maintain the ability to legislate CCW laws that best fit the needs of their communities.

Firearms Enforcement. The IACP urges Congress to increase resources to better allow state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies and the U.S. Department of Justice to enable greater prosecution of individuals for Brady Act violations. In addition, the IACP supports firearms enforcement programs that involve local, state, and federal agencies, such as Project Safe Neighborhoods and Project Exile, which have shown significant reductions in firearms-related violent crime.

Firearms Offender Registry. The reduction of firearms-related violent crime has been and continues to be a major goal of the IACP. Studies have shown that firearm offenders have a higher recidivist rate for committing other firearms-related violent crime with firearms than the rate for sexual offenders. Therefore, the IACP supports creating a federal registry, similar to the sexual offender registry, for offenders who have been previously convicted of a felony firearm violation or a misdemeanor that involved violent or threatening acts with firearms. At little cost, this registry would have great benefit toward preventing and investigating a myriad of violent crimes, as well as establishing a computerized list of dangerous offenders that could be utilized as a notification system to alert officers
of potential danger.

Firearm Purchase Waiting Period. The IACP has gone on record supporting a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun. In the past, waiting periods have served not only as time for a thorough background investigation but also as an informal cooling-off period for handgun purchasers. However, the time needed to perform most background checks has become obsolete due to the transition to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Nevertheless, the IACP believes there must still be a cooling-off period in place before an individual can purchase a handgun. Therefore, the IACP supports legislation to create a mandatory five-day waiting period prior to the completion of a handgun purchase.

Gun Show Loophole. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 stipulates that individuals “engaged in the business” of selling firearms must possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Holders of FFLs are required to conduct background checks and maintain a record of all their firearm sales. Certain gun sales and transfers between private individuals, however, are exempt from this requirement. The laws we have in place to ensure gun purchasers go through FFLs are undermined by oversights in the law that allow an individual prohibited from owning firearms to obtain weapons at events such as gun shows without undergoing a background check. The IACP supports legislation to close these loopholes and preserve the effectiveness of the laws in place.

Illegal Firearms Trafficking/Firearms Tracing. The IACP opposes any legislation that would limit or reduce the ability of U.S. law enforcement agencies to combat the sale of illegal guns. The IACP believes that the ability to trace illegal firearms effectively plays a critical role in law enforcement’s ability to protect communities from the scourge of firearms violence. ♦

And please don't bring out the PoliceOne "survey" from a few years back. It's been disproven.

NRA Misrepresents Police Survey, Legislation

 

[Howey]

So called "assault weapons" account for a very small fraction of all murders committed with a gun

Yet they account for the greatest majority of mass murders.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

It’s not up to law enforcement to determine what firearms should be available to the public, that’s the responsibility of lawmakers, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Most on the right oppose common sense firearm regulatory measures – such as universal background checks and a comprehensive mental healthcare policy – because it would take from them ‘guns’ as a perceived partisan weapon, where most on the right contrive and propagate lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscation,’ when in fact there will never be a ‘new’ AWB, and ‘gun confiscation’ will never happen because any such authorizing measure would be invalidated by the courts.

For conservatives ‘guns’ is a wedge issue used by the right to further divide the American people, as conservatives try to divide Americans on other issues.

Last, less than two percent of gun crimes are committed with long guns, semi-automatic weapons such as AR and AK/M platform rifles considerably less than that, where ‘banning’ such firearms would have little effect on decreasing overall gun crime, if at all.