Assault Weapon Ban Poll.

[xsited1]

Listen to Leroy Pyle

[youtube]YjM9fcEzSJ0[/youtube]

and give me some fucking flame throwers, tanks and 50 caliber sniper rifles!

Government agencies (for the most part) are the only ones who can have automatic weapons. I wonder what the Founding Fathers would say about that?

 

[Missourian]

I hate bad math, 1 percent of the US population would be 3 MILLION. Auto accidents do though account for more deaths then firearms.

Oops...my bad.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The law does not prevent people who have volunteered to enter mental institutes from owning weapons. Never has. The requirement is that a Competent authority ( A Judge) have declared you incompetent. You are aware , I hope, that alcohol rehab is usually in a mental institution? Last I checked one does not lose the right to own a weapon cause they drink to much. Unless convicted of a Felony.

You guys REALLY need to learn the law.

Why should someone be denied a firearm just because they "spent time" in a mental institution?

Not everyone who has "spent time" in one is a whacko.

O.k. boys... point taken. I used that only as a 'for instance'. Don't throw out the idea of a national database for screening purposes because I came up with a bad example. Surely we can agree that people convicted of assault, rape, home invasion, etc should have as hard a time as is possible getting a gun.

-Joe

 

[LOki]

Don't throw out the idea of a national database for screening purposes because I came up with a bad example.

Don't worry, it wasn't the bad example that indicted you--it was the bad idea.

Surely we can agree that people convicted of assault, rape, home invasion, etc should have as hard a time as is possible getting a gun.

Surely we can. What we can't agree upon is how this database will work if people convicted of assault, rape, home invasion, etc., don't submit themselves to background checks when they obtain their guns. What you don't seem to understand is that your national database will have zero effect on people convicted of assault, rape, home invasion, etc., but will instead be a handy national database of all LEGALLY owned firearms, and LEGAL firearm owners--legal, of course,l until such possession is declared illegal by totalitarians and their retarded enablers.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Don't worry, it wasn't the bad example that indicted you--it was the bad idea.

Surely we can. What we can't agree upon is how this database will work if people convicted of assault, rape, home invasion, etc., don't submit themselves to background checks when they obtain their guns. What you don't seem to understand is that your national database will have zero effect on people convicted of assault, rape, home invasion, etc., but will instead be a handy national database of all LEGALLY owned firearms, and LEGAL firearm owners--legal, of course,l until such possession is declared illegal by totalitarians and their retarded enablers.

It is not a question of understanding that there is a black market for guns... THAT is a question for another thread - we are discussing legal purchase in this one. Just because a black market exists doesn't mean we shouldn't do the best that we can to make the legal market a responsible one

-Joe

 

[Silence]

Odd, but I was under the impression a true, by-definition liberal wouoldn't be concerned with what I have or do in the privacy of my own home. Seems I've heard that argument somewhere ....

I'm not anymore concerned with what a Con does in their home than they are regarding what I do with my uterus

oh and I keep telling ya'll I'm not a liberal.

As for what can be found on background checks, restraining orders, past and present, criminal offenses, law suits, and various other interesting information which might make someone not the best candidate for gun ownership.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I thought they were pretty good comparisons. At least the lightning and the plane crash related deaths. It illustrates how rare an "assault weapon" related death is in the U.S.

The auto accidents I added because it is staggering. As many Americans killed in one day as killed by "assault weapons" in four years? That's a tragedy.

Not to hyjack my own thread, but 41,000 Americans were killed in car accidents last year. That is nearly 1.4% of the population of the United States.

But no one is crying out for more traffic police. No one wants radar cameras. Why?

There is one little difference... in lightning strikes, plane crashes and even most auto crashes, the odds are slim that anyone involved in the transaction wanted someone to die.

-Joe

 

[xsited1]

5 people voted 'yes'? I sure hope they don't live in the United States!

 

[LOki]

It is not a question of understanding that there is a black market for guns... THAT is a question for another thread - we are discussing legal purchase in this one. Just because a black market exists doesn't mean we shouldn't do the best that we can to make the legal market a responsible one

How does your database accomplish this? Really. Think it through before you answer.

What you seem to refuse to understand is that your national database will have zero effect on people convicted of assault, rape, home invasion, etc., but will instead, by intent and design, be a handy national database of all LEGALLY owned firearms, and LEGAL firearm owners--legal, of course, until such possession is declared illegal by totalitarians and their retarded enablers.

In fact, I have to wonder exactly why you'd prefer that people convicted of assault, rape, home invasion, etc., steal guns rather than buy them legally. How is that preference responsible?

 

[Silence]

5 people voted 'yes'? I sure hope they don't live in the United States!

why is that? is it against the law to have a different opinion suddenly? I voted yes and I stated my reason for voting yes. You're free to disagree with me...that's what makes this country supposedly so great, isn't it?

 

[LOki]

As for what can be found on background checks, restraining orders, past and present, criminal offenses, law suits, and various other interesting information which might make someone not the best candidate for gun ownership.

Why would someone with the kind of restraining orders, past and present, criminal offenses, law suits, and various other interesting information which might make someone not the best candidate for gun ownership, submit themselves to a background check? Even if they did, what would stop them from obtaining a gun through means where they are not required to submit to such checks; you know, like theft?

What exactly, besides feeding data to a handy repository of information for the eventual disarming of LEGAL gun owners, is the purpose of background checks? To insure that we know the people who we already know can legally possess guns can legally possess guns? WTF?

 

[tigerbob]

5 people voted 'yes'? I sure hope they don't live in the United States!

I'm one of those who voted yes. Sorry to disappoint.

 

[xsited1]

why is that? is it against the law to have a different opinion suddenly? I voted yes and I stated my reason for voting yes. You're free to disagree with me...that's what makes this country supposedly so great, isn't it?

I know several people who disagree with the Bill of Rights in part. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[xsited1]

I'm one of those who voted yes. Sorry to disappoint.

OMG!

 

[tigerbob]

OMG!

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm always amused by the phrase "assault weapon". What other kinds of weapons are there? I mean, isn't the entire point of ANY weapon to assault someone? Is there such a thing as the dreaded tickle weapon?

 

[AVG-JOE]

How does your database accomplish this? Really. Think it through before you answer.

What you seem to refuse to understand is that your national database will have zero effect on people convicted of assault, rape, home invasion, etc., but will instead, by intent and design, be a handy national database of all LEGALLY owned firearms, and LEGAL firearm owners--legal, of course, until such possession is declared illegal by totalitarians and their retarded enablers.

In fact, I have to wonder exactly why you'd prefer that people convicted of assault, rape, home invasion, etc., steal guns rather than buy them legally. How is that preference responsible?

If a national law enforcement database prevents convicted criminals from crossing state lines to purchase a firearm, why should a law abiding and responsible gun owner give a shit?

Should guns legally purchased in the past be taken away from newly convicted felons? My opinion is 'yes'.

If you don't want your right to own a legal gun to come into question, don't commit a felony.

What are you hiding LOki?

-Joe

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If a national law enforcement database prevents convicted criminals from crossing state lines to purchase a firearm, why should a law abiding and responsible gun owner give a shit?

Should guns legally purchased in the past be taken away from newly convicted felons? My opinion is 'yes'.

If you don't want your right to own a legal gun to come into question, don't commit a felony.

What are you hiding LOki?

-Joe

Except that lately felonies are not the only thing that can get your weapons taken and you barred from owning any. A misdomeaner is all it takes now if it is a family fight.

Once again I suggest you LEARN what laws ALREADY exists before telling us what new ones we need.

 

[LOki]

If a national law enforcement database prevents convicted criminals from crossing state lines to purchase a firearm, why should a law abiding and responsible gun owner give a shit?

first, exactly how does your national database prevent convicted criminals from obtaining firearms?

Secondly, the reason law abiding and reaponinle gun owners should give a shit, is because the ONLY purpose for such a database is the confiscation of guns from said responsible gun owners.

Should guns legally purchased in the past be taken away from newly convicted felons? My opinion is 'yes'.

what of legally purchased guns made illegal by regulatory fiat? Do you endorse the totalitarian practice of the government declaring arms illegal for the purposes of disarming the governed?

If you don't want your right to own a legal gun to come into question, don't commit a felony.

I haven't commuted any felony, and others like myself have our right to keep and near arms infringed by nearly every gun control regulation ever written.

How about this Jasper; infringe my rights only AFTER I've committed a felony, only AFTER I've established incompretency, but until then my right to keep and bear any arm I please remains UNINFRINGED.

What are you hiding LOki?

-Joe

nothing. What bullshit presumption are you hiding that demands the government can infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

 

[Modbert]

Since the assault weapon ban was was lifted in 2004, the number of deaths in the U.S., and that's all deaths, not just murders and crime related deaths, in four years is...163.

And with a couple of days into office, Obama has not taken away anyone's guns!

No tanks rolling down the street demanding you give up your gun even if it is your only line of defense.

However:

NRA upset with New Orleans PD gun confiscation order - Local News

Pretty sure THAT happened under the Bush Administration.