The killer did not use an AR-15...he used a Sig....

[Fair&Balanced]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

According to you all we need to do is ban assault weapons and mass shootings will magically disappear. France proves that to be crap.

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

Now, let's address a REAL question.

Why do you think confiscating assault weapons would keep criminals from obtaining assault weapons?

Further, why do you think forced deportation of illegal aliens is a bad idea, but forced confiscation of legal weapons is a good idea?

Can you explain your position on EITHER of those points?

 

[Czernobog]

According to you all we need to do is ban assault weapons and mass shootings will magically disappear. France proves that to be crap.

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

So, you don't actually want to do anything to get assault weapons off the street. You just want to appear that you agree we need to get assault weapons off the street. Got it.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

So, you don't actually want to do anything to get assault weapons off the street. You just want to appear that you agree we need to get assault weapons off the street. Got it.

Correct, I do not want to do anything to take assault weapons from law abiding citizens.

Gee, I wonder why you ignored the other half of my post.

Why do liberals such as yourself always do that, you ask questions and you ask questions and get mad when they aren't answered. Then you refuse to answer any questions asked of you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

So, you don't actually want to do anything to get assault weapons off the street. You just want to appear that you agree we need to get assault weapons off the street. Got it.

You do know that so called assault weapons are not doing the killing on the streets don't you? Illegal handguns are the biggest culprits in murders overall

In fact murders committed with all rifles including those scary so called assault rifles are outnumbered every year by people killed with bare hands and feet

 

[Rustic]

and YOUR opinion means so much...

Most of my customers are military, police and fire, the vast majority of military folk disagree with that guy. It's obvious you're a horses ass…

 

[Fair&Balanced]

According to you all we need to do is ban assault weapons and mass shootings will magically disappear. France proves that to be crap.

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

Now, let's address a REAL question.

Why do you think confiscating assault weapons would keep criminals from obtaining assault weapons?

Further, why do you think forced deportation of illegal aliens is a bad idea, but forced confiscation of legal weapons is a good idea?

Can you explain your position on EITHER of those points?

Czernobog why won't you address my questions coward?

 

[Rustic]

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

So, you don't actually want to do anything to get assault weapons off the street. You just want to appear that you agree we need to get assault weapons off the street. Got it.

No one is killed by your so-called "assault weapons on the street" you dumb fucker. More People die from falling out of bed then are killed by people using Ar15. dumb shit
This whole gun control discussion had nothing to do with guns it's all about control you fucking bastards need to go back to your mothers basements...
Lol

 

[2aguy]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

According to you all we need to do is ban assault weapons and mass shootings will magically disappear. France proves that to be crap.

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

WE should do what Japan does....they have a 30 year sentence for gun crimes...now even the Yakuza are reluctant to use them.

We should have a general background check for citizens that would count for job background checks..that way you could hide who was getting the check to buy a gun...that would work better than that license.

I have to disagree on it though.....licensing gun owners is not necessary. The background check at the gun store is enough. Felons can be arrested if they are caught with a gun...so if you are stopped by police and have a gun on you, they can run your i.d. and see if you have any convictions...if you do, you are arrested, if not, you go on your way...as we see in New York, New Jersey and other places...any licensing scheme can be used to deny law abiding people acces to guns.

The flag on your name....that might work....have to flesh it out more.

 

[2aguy]

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

So, you don't actually want to do anything to get assault weapons off the street. You just want to appear that you agree we need to get assault weapons off the street. Got it.

France got their rifles off the street.......they have all the gun control laws you want...every last one, and they even have fewer civil rights......and as I have posted about and given links about...their criminals get fully automatic weapons easily...and their terrrorists get fully automatic weapons easily....

So why do you say we don't want to get rifles off the street........we do....it is just that none of your ideas actually do anything..except fuck with normal gun owners......who don't commit crimes with the weapons you hate...

Remember...each year.....8,000,000 rifles not used for crime vs. 1 or 2 that are used for crime.....

8,000,000 to 2......and you think it is rational to ban the 8,000,000 making millions of gun owners who own those guns into criminals overnight....who never fired their weapon in the commission of a crime....

 

[Czernobog]

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

Now, let's address a REAL question.

Why do you think confiscating assault weapons would keep criminals from obtaining assault weapons?

Further, why do you think forced deportation of illegal aliens is a bad idea, but forced confiscation of legal weapons is a good idea?

Can you explain your position on EITHER of those points?

Czernobog why won't you address my questions coward?

Because I've answered your question - twice. I never said that it would eliminate the possibility. Unlike you, however, I do think it will reduce the likelihood of crimes being committed with assault weapons. Between 1994, and 2001, there were fewer than 1,800 crimes in the US using assault weapons. Between 2001, to 2007 that number jumped to nearly 400 per year. And that was with the faulty AWB as it was written. Do you seriously have any doubt that a properly written ban, removing the majority of assault weapons from the street would not have at least an equal, if not greater effect on crime? REALLY? Because the evidence indicates otherwise.

As to your second question, it's a bad idea because of the cost involved. I'm not talking about "confiscation". I'm not talking about people coming to your door to collect your weapons. I'm just talking about making ownership illegal. Since you, and your 80 million law abiding gun owners, respect the law so much, then as soon as it is no longer legal to own an assault weapon, no one should have to come collect them up. You abide by the law. You should willingly turn in any illegal merchandise, shouldn't you? After all, you respect, and obey the law.

The same cannot er said for rounding up illegals. It would cause, even by Trump's assessment, a tripling of ICE agents, adding nearly 200 billion dollars to the federal government. For what? Rounding up a bunch of immigrants, of whom less that 1/2 of 1 percent actually commit any crime other than coming here without the proper paper work? That's why forced deportation is a stupid idea, and an complete Assault Weapons Ban isn't.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

According to you all we need to do is ban assault weapons and mass shootings will magically disappear. France proves that to be crap.

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

WE should do what Japan does....they have a 30 year sentence for gun crimes...now even the Yakuza are reluctant to use them.

We should have a general background check for citizens that would count for job background checks..that way you could hide who was getting the check to buy a gun...that would work better than that license.

I have to disagree on it though.....licensing gun owners is not necessary. The background check at the gun store is enough. Felons can be arrested if they are caught with a gun...so if you are stopped by police and have a gun on you, they can run your i.d. and see if you have any convictions...if you do, you are arrested, if not, you go on your way...as we see in New York, New Jersey and other places...any licensing scheme can be used to deny law abiding people acces to guns.

The flag on your name....that might work....have to flesh it out more.

Listen though, if you license owners, you don't have to go through the background check rigamorale every time you want to purchase ammo or even a new gun. You just hand the guy your ID he sends it through the reader. Clear and no flags, no problem you get to buy your stuff right on the spot.

I would even go one step further, let's implement The Real ID Act , right now and then your state ID will have a chip on it just like your credit card and you wouldn't even need a separate ID to buy guns, the information stored on your DL would indicate that you are cleared to vote, cleared to buy guns, and whatever else the government needs to know.

Now think about what I just proposed as to compared to the current background check, where it's a simple matter of comparing back ground check to store receipt to tell exactly what gun you now own. It's a defacto gun registration.

Done my way , no records are even kept after your initial background check is passed. Unless things change and your clearance is removed.

So there is no record to compare to gun store receipts.

 

[westwall]

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

So, you don't actually want to do anything to get assault weapons off the street. You just want to appear that you agree we need to get assault weapons off the street. Got it.

No, we don't, because guns aren't the problem. PEOPLE are. You bring third world people here to the US and are shocked when they continue to live by their third world culture which is overwhelmingly more violent than our own. I have actually lived and worked in the Third World. It sucks. They don't value life. They don't value anything except their immediate needs and how to meet them which usually means taking them from someone else through violent methods.

You want to disarm the law abiding who outnumber the criminals by many orders of magnitude, and you want to bring even MORE third world savages into the country with no attempt to control those who come here.

Face it dude, you're either incredibly stupid, or insane.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

Now, let's address a REAL question.

Why do you think confiscating assault weapons would keep criminals from obtaining assault weapons?

Further, why do you think forced deportation of illegal aliens is a bad idea, but forced confiscation of legal weapons is a good idea?

Can you explain your position on EITHER of those points?

Czernobog why won't you address my questions coward?

Because I've answered your question - twice. I never said that it would eliminate the possibility. Unlike you, however, I do think it will reduce the likelihood of crimes being committed with assault weapons. Between 1994, and 2001, there were fewer than 1,800 crimes in the US using assault weapons. Between 2001, to 2007 that number jumped to nearly 400 per year. And that was with the faulty AWB as it was written. Do you seriously have any doubt that a properly written ban, removing the majority of assault weapons from the street would not have at least an equal, if not greater effect on crime? REALLY? Because the evidence indicates otherwise.

As to your second question, it's a bad idea because of the cost involved. I'm not talking about "confiscation". I'm not talking about people coming to your door to collect your weapons. I'm just talking about making ownership illegal. Since you, and your 80 million law abiding gun owners, respect the law so much, then as soon as it is no longer legal to own an assault weapon, no one should have to come collect them up. You abide by the law. You should willingly turn in any illegal merchandise, shouldn't you? After all, you respect, and obey the law.

The same cannot er said for rounding up illegals. It would cause, even by Trump's assessment, a tripling of ICE agents, adding nearly 200 billion dollars to the federal government. For what? Rounding up a bunch of immigrants, of whom less that 1/2 of 1 percent actually commit any crime other than coming here without the proper paper work? That's why forced deportation is a stupid idea, and an complete Assault Weapons Ban isn't.

i counter your first argument with this. Did making drugs illegal increase or decrease drug use in this country?

 

[2aguy]

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

Now, let's address a REAL question.

Why do you think confiscating assault weapons would keep criminals from obtaining assault weapons?

Further, why do you think forced deportation of illegal aliens is a bad idea, but forced confiscation of legal weapons is a good idea?

Can you explain your position on EITHER of those points?

Czernobog why won't you address my questions coward?

Because I've answered your question - twice. I never said that it would eliminate the possibility. Unlike you, however, I do think it will reduce the likelihood of crimes being committed with assault weapons. Between 1994, and 2001, there were fewer than 1,800 crimes in the US using assault weapons. Between 2001, to 2007 that number jumped to nearly 400 per year. And that was with the faulty AWB as it was written. Do you seriously have any doubt that a properly written ban, removing the majority of assault weapons from the street would not have at least an equal, if not greater effect on crime? REALLY? Because the evidence indicates otherwise.

As to your second question, it's a bad idea because of the cost involved. I'm not talking about "confiscation". I'm not talking about people coming to your door to collect your weapons. I'm just talking about making ownership illegal. Since you, and your 80 million law abiding gun owners, respect the law so much, then as soon as it is no longer legal to own an assault weapon, no one should have to come collect them up. You abide by the law. You should willingly turn in any illegal merchandise, shouldn't you? After all, you respect, and obey the law.

The same cannot er said for rounding up illegals. It would cause, even by Trump's assessment, a tripling of ICE agents, adding nearly 200 billion dollars to the federal government. For what? Rounding up a bunch of immigrants, of whom less that 1/2 of 1 percent actually commit any crime other than coming here without the proper paper work? That's why forced deportation is a stupid idea, and an complete Assault Weapons Ban isn't.

Where did you get the 400 per year number....please link....I had one of you nuts put up a chart that showed something like that...then I went in and read it....they counted bolt action rifles, shotguns and semi auto pistols as "assault weapons" so please, you are going to have to give an exact link to that stat.....we do not take anti gun crap at face value.....

o you seriously have any doubt that a properly written ban, removing the majority of assault weapons from the street would not have at least an equal, if not greater effect on crime? REALLY? Because the evidence indicates otherwise.

Yes.......it will not remove rifles from mass shooters or criminals who want them.....the evidence does not indicate otherwise....

 

[westwall]

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

Now, let's address a REAL question.

Why do you think confiscating assault weapons would keep criminals from obtaining assault weapons?

Further, why do you think forced deportation of illegal aliens is a bad idea, but forced confiscation of legal weapons is a good idea?

Can you explain your position on EITHER of those points?

Czernobog why won't you address my questions coward?

Because I've answered your question - twice. I never said that it would eliminate the possibility. Unlike you, however, I do think it will reduce the likelihood of crimes being committed with assault weapons. Between 1994, and 2001, there were fewer than 1,800 crimes in the US using assault weapons. Between 2001, to 2007 that number jumped to nearly 400 per year. And that was with the faulty AWB as it was written. Do you seriously have any doubt that a properly written ban, removing the majority of assault weapons from the street would not have at least an equal, if not greater effect on crime? REALLY? Because the evidence indicates otherwise.

As to your second question, it's a bad idea because of the cost involved. I'm not talking about "confiscation". I'm not talking about people coming to your door to collect your weapons. I'm just talking about making ownership illegal. Since you, and your 80 million law abiding gun owners, respect the law so much, then as soon as it is no longer legal to own an assault weapon, no one should have to come collect them up. You abide by the law. You should willingly turn in any illegal merchandise, shouldn't you? After all, you respect, and obey the law.

The same cannot er said for rounding up illegals. It would cause, even by Trump's assessment, a tripling of ICE agents, adding nearly 200 billion dollars to the federal government. For what? Rounding up a bunch of immigrants, of whom less that 1/2 of 1 percent actually commit any crime other than coming here without the proper paper work? That's why forced deportation is a stupid idea, and an complete Assault Weapons Ban isn't.

Why do you believe that? Did prohibition reduce the crimes committed by people under the influence of alcohol? I'll answer that for you, no it didn't. In fact it led to the birth of organized crime.

How about the drug war? How has that worked out? I'll answer that question for you, since the drug war began, we as private citizens have had our civil liberties taken from us, we have incarcerated hundreds of thousands of non violent offenders, and the quality of the drugs has gone way up, while the price has gone way down.

In other words, the drug war is an abject failure as well.

So, what makes you think that a ban on guns will be any different, and please. Be very specific with your thoughts.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

So, you don't actually want to do anything to get assault weapons off the street. You just want to appear that you agree we need to get assault weapons off the street. Got it.

No, we don't, because guns aren't the problem. PEOPLE are. You bring third world people here to the US and are shocked when they continue to live by their third world culture which is overwhelmingly more violent than our own. I have actually lived and worked in the Third World. It sucks. They don't value life. They don't value anything except their immediate needs and how to meet them which usually means taking them from someone else through violent methods.

You want to disarm the law abiding who outnumber the criminals by many orders of magnitude, and you want to bring even MORE third world savages into the country with no attempt to control those who come here.

Face it dude, you're either incredibly stupid, or insane.

They don't seem to get that.

People who don't value human life will find ways to take human life. Those who do value human life will not kill people, even if they have the tools in front of them to do so.

Forgetting the 2nd Amendment for a moment, there is no reason to believe that crime would drop if guns were illegal.

Chicago is ABSOLUTE proof of this. Guns are illegal in Chicago, Has that correlated to less gun violence? Of course not because criminals don't obey laws, that's why they are fucking called criminals.

 

[2aguy]

According to you all we need to do is ban assault weapons and mass shootings will magically disappear. France proves that to be crap.

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

WE should do what Japan does....they have a 30 year sentence for gun crimes...now even the Yakuza are reluctant to use them.

We should have a general background check for citizens that would count for job background checks..that way you could hide who was getting the check to buy a gun...that would work better than that license.

I have to disagree on it though.....licensing gun owners is not necessary. The background check at the gun store is enough. Felons can be arrested if they are caught with a gun...so if you are stopped by police and have a gun on you, they can run your i.d. and see if you have any convictions...if you do, you are arrested, if not, you go on your way...as we see in New York, New Jersey and other places...any licensing scheme can be used to deny law abiding people acces to guns.

The flag on your name....that might work....have to flesh it out more.

Listen though, if you license owners, you don't have to go through the background check rigamorale every time you want to purchase ammo or even a new gun. You just hand the guy your ID he sends it through the reader. Clear and no flags, no problem you get to buy your stuff right on the spot.

I would even go one step further, let's implement The Real ID Act , right now and then your state ID will have a chip on it just like your credit card and you wouldn't even need a separate ID to buy guns, the information stored on your DL would indicate that you are cleared to vote, cleared to buy guns, and whatever else the government needs to know.

Now think about what I just proposed as to compared to the current background check, where it's a simple matter of comparing back ground check to store receipt to tell exactly what gun you now own. It's a defacto gun registration.

Done my way , no records are even kept after your initial background check is passed. Unless things change and your clearance is removed.

So there is no record to compare to gun store receipts.

And a cop just takes your drivers license and runs your name...that is

According to you all we need to do is ban assault weapons and mass shootings will magically disappear. France proves that to be crap.

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

WE should do what Japan does....they have a 30 year sentence for gun crimes...now even the Yakuza are reluctant to use them.

We should have a general background check for citizens that would count for job background checks..that way you could hide who was getting the check to buy a gun...that would work better than that license.

I have to disagree on it though.....licensing gun owners is not necessary. The background check at the gun store is enough. Felons can be arrested if they are caught with a gun...so if you are stopped by police and have a gun on you, they can run your i.d. and see if you have any convictions...if you do, you are arrested, if not, you go on your way...as we see in New York, New Jersey and other places...any licensing scheme can be used to deny law abiding people acces to guns.

The flag on your name....that might work....have to flesh it out more.

Listen though, if you license owners, you don't have to go through the background check rigamorale every time you want to purchase ammo or even a new gun. You just hand the guy your ID he sends it through the reader. Clear and no flags, no problem you get to buy your stuff right on the spot.

I would even go one step further, let's implement The Real ID Act , right now and then your state ID will have a chip on it just like your credit card and you wouldn't even need a separate ID to buy guns, the information stored on your DL would indicate that you are cleared to vote, cleared to buy guns, and whatever else the government needs to know.

Now think about what I just proposed as to compared to the current background check, where it's a simple matter of comparing back ground check to store receipt to tell exactly what gun you now own. It's a defacto gun registration.

Done my way , no records are even kept after your initial background check is passed. Unless things change and your clearance is removed.

So there is no record to compare to gun store receipts.

At a traffic stop the cop just takes your drivers license and runs your name through the system...no reason we can't just make NICS based on drivers licenses...right? Then you aren't flagging anyone as a gun owner.

I can see your point .....but it would have to count for all background checks to keep it from just being for guns....to easy to target gun owners otherwise.

 

[Old Rocks]

Skooks;
Connect the dots fail................

The ban the AR crowd doesn't get it...........never will. Its a thinking thing with these progressives. Next week, they'll want to ban a varmint rifle with semi-capabilities!!

Im laughing..........people familiar with firearms will know that even something like a .17HMR in semi-auto form fires a small but vicious round at up to 3,200ft/sec. The Orlando Muzzie wound have been just as proficient with one of those.................s0n!!!

And now Im off to the local hospital to lecture a brain surgeon about how to go about his work!!!
...........................................................................................................................................................

Cartridge Type: Rifle
Height: 1.76"
Width: 0.378"
Average FPS: 3148
Average Energy: 1254
Average Gr: 57
Recoil: 0.8
Power Rank: 1.79 of 20 [?]

.223 Remington (5.56x45mm NATO) Ballistics GunData.org

Apparently another dumbass that knows nothing about the ballastics of the gun he is talking about.

 

[Czernobog]

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

Now, let's address a REAL question.

Why do you think confiscating assault weapons would keep criminals from obtaining assault weapons?

Further, why do you think forced deportation of illegal aliens is a bad idea, but forced confiscation of legal weapons is a good idea?

Can you explain your position on EITHER of those points?

Czernobog why won't you address my questions coward?

Because I've answered your question - twice. I never said that it would eliminate the possibility. Unlike you, however, I do think it will reduce the likelihood of crimes being committed with assault weapons. Between 1994, and 2001, there were fewer than 1,800 crimes in the US using assault weapons. Between 2001, to 2007 that number jumped to nearly 400 per year. And that was with the faulty AWB as it was written. Do you seriously have any doubt that a properly written ban, removing the majority of assault weapons from the street would not have at least an equal, if not greater effect on crime? REALLY? Because the evidence indicates otherwise.

As to your second question, it's a bad idea because of the cost involved. I'm not talking about "confiscation". I'm not talking about people coming to your door to collect your weapons. I'm just talking about making ownership illegal. Since you, and your 80 million law abiding gun owners, respect the law so much, then as soon as it is no longer legal to own an assault weapon, no one should have to come collect them up. You abide by the law. You should willingly turn in any illegal merchandise, shouldn't you? After all, you respect, and obey the law.

The same cannot er said for rounding up illegals. It would cause, even by Trump's assessment, a tripling of ICE agents, adding nearly 200 billion dollars to the federal government. For what? Rounding up a bunch of immigrants, of whom less that 1/2 of 1 percent actually commit any crime other than coming here without the proper paper work? That's why forced deportation is a stupid idea, and an complete Assault Weapons Ban isn't.

i counter your first argument with this. Did making drugs illegal increase or decrease drug use in this country?

Well, based on the marked increase in marijuana use in both Washington, and Colorado, since it was legalized, I would say, yes. Yes it did decrease drug use.

 

[westwall]

According to you all we need to do is ban assault weapons and mass shootings will magically disappear. France proves that to be crap.

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

WE should do what Japan does....they have a 30 year sentence for gun crimes...now even the Yakuza are reluctant to use them.

We should have a general background check for citizens that would count for job background checks..that way you could hide who was getting the check to buy a gun...that would work better than that license.

I have to disagree on it though.....licensing gun owners is not necessary. The background check at the gun store is enough. Felons can be arrested if they are caught with a gun...so if you are stopped by police and have a gun on you, they can run your i.d. and see if you have any convictions...if you do, you are arrested, if not, you go on your way...as we see in New York, New Jersey and other places...any licensing scheme can be used to deny law abiding people acces to guns.

The flag on your name....that might work....have to flesh it out more.

Listen though, if you license owners, you don't have to go through the background check rigamorale every time you want to purchase ammo or even a new gun. You just hand the guy your ID he sends it through the reader. Clear and no flags, no problem you get to buy your stuff right on the spot.

I would even go one step further, let's implement The Real ID Act , right now and then your state ID will have a chip on it just like your credit card and you wouldn't even need a separate ID to buy guns, the information stored on your DL would indicate that you are cleared to vote, cleared to buy guns, and whatever else the government needs to know.

Now think about what I just proposed as to compared to the current background check, where it's a simple matter of comparing back ground check to store receipt to tell exactly what gun you now own. It's a defacto gun registration.

Done my way , no records are even kept after your initial background check is passed. Unless things change and your clearance is removed.

So there is no record to compare to gun store receipts.

You can't license a Right. The second you do it is no longer a Right. Furthermore, once a licensing scheme is in place it is but a minor step to placing restrictions on those licenses that make it impossible for anyone but those people the politicians like to obtain them.

It is a foolish person who actually believes the government won't give itself more power.