Proposed "Assault Weapon" Ban Question

[Steven_R]

Let's say we get any proposed Assault Weapon ban through. We can model it on the 1994 one. Certain features are restricted, magazines are limited, certain calibers are outlawed, background checks, so on and so forth.

Now, the rational for these bans in those weapons are really just too darn dangerous for mere civilians to have access to. Fair enough. But what about the ones already out there? If citizens can't be trusted to have new assault weapons, what is the plan for the millions already out there? If we're going to grandfather those ones in, then are they really that dangerous? If we're going to require registration, what do we do if gun owners don't register? If they're really that dangerous, despite the fact that those weapons are rarely used in the street crimes that the vast majority of gun killings are, then will we want cops to go door to door and get them? What if the cops refuse?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Unconstitutional. All of it.

 

[konradv]

Unconstitutional. All of it.

Bullshit. Full of it. ^^^

 

[Little-Acorn]

Let's say we get any proposed Assault Weapon ban through. We can model it on the 1994 one.

Will you also model it on the 1994 law's failure to have any effect on gun crimes, murder rates etc.?

I'd guess you will, whether you like it or not... because these laws never work. They just make whiny liberals feel better, congratulating themselves for having "done something". While criminals cordially thank them for disarming a few more victims, that the criminals can now assault with impunity.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Unconstitutional. All of it.

Bullshit. Full of it. ^^^

Try reading the thing for a change. The federal government has NO authority over 2A matters outside of weapons that cannot be personally borne. None. Nada.

 

[Steven_R]

I'm against any regulation, period. I'm a BoR absolutist. I've never heard a reason why we should restrict new purchases, but do nothing about the millions already in circulation. If they're that bad why let them continue to exist in the wild?

 

[Rustic]

Let's say we get any proposed Assault Weapon ban through. We can model it on the 1994 one. Certain features are restricted, magazines are limited, certain calibers are outlawed, background checks, so on and so forth.

Now, the rational for these bans in those weapons are really just too darn dangerous for mere civilians to have access to. Fair enough. But what about the ones already out there? If citizens can't be trusted to have new assault weapons, what is the plan for the millions already out there? If we're going to grandfather those ones in, then are they really that dangerous? If we're going to require registration, what do we do if gun owners don't register? If they're really that dangerous, despite the fact that those weapons are rarely used in the street crimes that the vast majority of gun killings are, then will we want cops to go door to door and get them? What if the cops refuse?

...and very few crimes percentage wise are committed using the so called "assault weapons"

 

[konradv]

The federal government has NO authority over 2A matters outside of weapons that cannot be personally borne. None. Nada.

Where does the 2A mention weapons that can be personally borne? Nowhere. En ninguna parte.

 

[Rustic]

The federal government has NO authority over 2A matters outside of weapons that cannot be personally borne. None. Nada.

Where does the 2A mention weapons that can be personally borne? Nowhere. En ninguna parte.

Where does it say firearm ownership is any of the federal government's business??

 

[konradv]

The federal government has NO authority over 2A matters outside of weapons that cannot be personally borne. None. Nada.

Where does the 2A mention weapons that can be personally borne? Nowhere. En ninguna parte.

Where does it say firearm ownership is any of the federal government's business??

Why wouldn't it be? If it wasn't, the ATF would have been declared unconstitutional long ago.

 

[Rustic]

The federal government has NO authority over 2A matters outside of weapons that cannot be personally borne. None. Nada.

Where does the 2A mention weapons that can be personally borne? Nowhere. En ninguna parte.

Where does it say firearm ownership is any of the federal government's business??

Why wouldn't it be? If it wasn't, the ATF would have been declared unconstitutional long ago.

Firearm Registration is unconstitutional plain and simple, the ATF is for criminals not law obiding citizens.
More gun control and regulations = less freedoms.
The federal government has neither the morals, ethics and credibility to tell its citizens what they can and can not have. Psss... The last I looked uncle sugar is supposed to be working for the citizens not the other way around??

 

[konradv]

Firearm Registration is unconstitutional plain and simple

Then why hasn't the USSC said so?

 

[Siete]

Unconstitutional. All of it.

like the ban on assault rifles Romney passed into law when he was a Govie ?

 

[tyroneweaver]

Let's say we get any proposed Assault Weapon ban through. We can model it on the 1994 one. Certain features are restricted, magazines are limited, certain calibers are outlawed, background checks, so on and so forth.

Now, the rational for these bans in those weapons are really just too darn dangerous for mere civilians to have access to. Fair enough. But what about the ones already out there? If citizens can't be trusted to have new assault weapons, what is the plan for the millions already out there? If we're going to grandfather those ones in, then are they really that dangerous? If we're going to require registration, what do we do if gun owners don't register? If they're really that dangerous, despite the fact that those weapons are rarely used in the street crimes that the vast majority of gun killings are, then will we want cops to go door to door and get them? What if the cops refuse?

The feds have enough information that they would cancel something you are receiving if you didn't comply.In my case they would say, turn in your weapon or no ss check. That's how they would do it.

 

[Rustic]

Firearm Registration is unconstitutional plain and simple

Then why hasn't the USSC said so?

Nothing good can come from it, that is why it's not needed... Therefore fortunately it's not required...
...and unconstitutional

 

[Rustic]

Unconstitutional. All of it.

like the ban on assault rifles Romney passed into law when he was a Govie ?

Yes, the Rino did. That does not make it right though.
A dumbass law for dumbass control freaks.