Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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
They have?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?
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
And mass murders account for less than 1% of all murdersYet they account for the greatest majority of mass murders.So called "assault weapons" account for a very small fraction of all murders committed with a gun
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?
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?
The Left:
1) Drug laws are stupid, criminals just provide the drugs like they provided alcohol in prohibition and no one respects government's right to tell them what they can put in their bodies
2) Abortion laws are stupid, people will get abortions anyway and just be in bigger danger because they'll go to illegal doctors and unsanitary places
3) Let's have gun laws, then people who want to shoot people won't be able to get a gun!!!! What?
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?
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?
The Left:
1) Drug laws are stupid, criminals just provide the drugs like they provided alcohol in prohibition and no one respects government's right to tell them what they can put in their bodies
2) Abortion laws are stupid, people will get abortions anyway and just be in bigger danger because they'll go to illegal doctors and unsanitary places
3) Let's have gun laws, then people who want to shoot people won't be able to get a gun!!!! What?
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?
The Left:
1) Drug laws are stupid, criminals just provide the drugs like they provided alcohol in prohibition and no one respects government's right to tell them what they can put in their bodies
2) Abortion laws are stupid, people will get abortions anyway and just be in bigger danger because they'll go to illegal doctors and unsanitary places
3) Let's have gun laws, then people who want to shoot people won't be able to get a gun!!!! What?
Well, there's no way round the fact that arguments based upon "hypothesis contrary to fact" and "just in case" lines of reasoning, all of which are just variations on the general category of an appeal to fear, are invalid arguments.
The left are equally willing to use and guilty of using those emotional lines of argument to make their point. Sage folks of integrity, regardless of their personal viewpoint, will recognize these types of appeal and refute them, or at least not show support for the poor argument, even if they agree with the ultimate conclusion of the person/entity using the fallacious line(s) of argument. How does one do that? Well, an easy and unequivocal way of doing it is to say, "While I agree with your overall conclusion of 'such and such,' your argument for it is invalid, thus lame."
And here I thought this was a conversation.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.Other laws don't hinder the ability of citizen's to defend themselves.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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.Other laws don't hinder the ability of citizen's to defend themselves.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.
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.
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.
Yet they account for the greatest majority of mass murders.So called "assault weapons" account for a very small fraction of all murders committed with a gun
Most cops are pro 2nd amendment.
If you want to clean up the streets arrest and jail the people who commit the majority of crimes for loooooooong periods of time.
After all...we know it's a small segment of society that are repeat offenders that commit the majority of crimes.
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.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?
We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.
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?
Why not make murder illegal too while we're at it?
Because I, unlike so many, understand what was meant by, "...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." I have yet to find anyone who can honestly explain to me how that is unclear, or even debatable.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.
