Should the US institute a ban on assault weapons.

How about free gun safes for everyone that owns a firearm . That's something I could get behind! The Bernie supporters should love that solution.

PJPOWER said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJPOWER said:

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

I want the study allowed and funded that shows how weapons get to the black market. then based on those findings , enact the legislation that targets that.

waiting period , perhaps, on models based on military weaponery. and/or legislation restricting some of the mods available and magazine capacities.

I think magazine capacity is key. No need for a damn 30 round mag, 15 is plenty.

So what are we going to do afterwards? I think we can both agree that a ban will not make them go away, right? How would you propose ensuring that they are no longer in the hands of people? I'm pretty sure that at this point there are enough of them floating around out there to last for centuries. So someone gets into their grandfather's closet and goes on a mass killing spree...what do we ban now? I sure hope that the anti-gun crowd does not support door to door confiscation, because that would definitely not end well. What other programs do we put in place that would make a real difference once they get "banned".

I think you can make them go away. Once they're banned, anyone that owns one should have to turn it in.

Zero way of that actually happening. How are you going to make people turn them in? How are you ever going to know who has them without door to door raids resulting in chaos? Do you favor door to door raids? If so, then let me know now so that I can disregard any of your future opinions.

I see little chance of them being banned completely. Also owners who just spent $1000 + on their new rifle won't willingly turn it in. if they did get banned they would most likely be grandfathered in, meaning you can keep yours, but can't buy or sell or transfer ownership of any. Which would take about 60 or 70 years for them to be officially be illegal, the time it takes for anyone owning one now to turn old and die. In the mean time they could require any assault rifle to be registered, to make sure it isn't illegally sold to someone and just claim they've had it for 20 years. Many wont register it of course, but then just treat it like owning an illegal handgun that isn't registered (since all handguns are registered when purchased, at least in my state, and possession of an unregistered hand gun is a crime, maybe even a felony?).
But then again, someone who doesn't mind murdering 49 people probably wont be change his mind because now the assault rifle Is illegal too.

PJPOWER said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJPOWER said:

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

I want the study allowed and funded that shows how weapons get to the black market. then based on those findings , enact the legislation that targets that.

waiting period , perhaps, on models based on military weaponery. and/or legislation restricting some of the mods available and magazine capacities.

I think magazine capacity is key. No need for a damn 30 round mag, 15 is plenty.

So what are we going to do afterwards? I think we can both agree that a ban will not make them go away, right? How would you propose ensuring that they are no longer in the hands of people? I'm pretty sure that at this point there are enough of them floating around out there to last for centuries. So someone gets into their grandfather's closet and goes on a mass killing spree...what do we ban now? I sure hope that the anti-gun crowd does not support door to door confiscation, because that would definitely not end well. What other programs do we put in place that would make a real difference once they get "banned".

I think you can make them go away. Once they're banned, anyone that owns one should have to turn it in.

Zero way of that actually happening. How are you going to make people turn them in? How are you ever going to know who has them without door to door raids resulting in chaos? Do you favor door to door raids? If so, then let me know now so that I can disregard any of your future opinions.

I didn't say by way of door to door raids. Obviously you can't force people to give their stuff to the government. There could be programs set up that allows the government to "pay" you to turn in a banned assault weapon.

I'm well aware that these guns, even if banned, will still be out there. You just have to hope that they don't end up on the hands of someone that wants to kill a lot of people.

Degeneratefk said:

I didn't say by way of door to door raids. Obviously you can't force people to give their stuff to the government. There could be programs set up that allows the government to "pay" you to turn in a banned assault weapon.

I'm well aware that these guns, even if banned, will still be out there. You just have to hope that they don't end up on the hands of someone that wants to kill a lot of people.

Why stop at semi automatic rifles? Did the Virginia Tech shooting that killed 32 people and wounded 17 involve one of those scary black semi automatic rifles? NO!!!! The POS used a .22-caliber Walther P22 handgun and a 9 mm Glock 19 handgun.

If someone wants to carry out a terror act, or whatever you want to call it, mass murder, etc. They'll do it by any means possible. And there is a lot of ways it can be done without a gun. It isn't the guns people. When was the last time a gun picked it's self up and killed someone?

oftenreading said:

EM194007 said:

Degeneratefk said:

I didn't say by way of door to door raids. Obviously you can't force people to give their stuff to the government. There could be programs set up that allows the government to "pay" you to turn in a banned assault weapon.

I'm well aware that these guns, even if banned, will still be out there. You just have to hope that they don't end up on the hands of someone that wants to kill a lot of people.

Why stop at semi automatic rifles? Did the Virginia Tech shooting that killed 32 people and wounded 17 involve one of those scary black semi automatic rifles? NO!!!! The POS used a .22-caliber Walther P22 handgun and a 9 mm Glock 19 handgun.

If someone wants to carry out a terror act, or whatever you want to call it, mass murder, etc. They'll do it by any means possible. And there is a lot of ways it can be done without a gun. It isn't the guns people. When was the last time a gun picked it's self up and killed someone?

Kind of odd that you would say that there are a lot of ways that people can commit mass murder without guns, while using a gun example. Realistically there are few ways to commit mass killings without firearms. It's really difficult to get a lot of people to stand still while you knife them, for example. Poison? Possible, but pretty fiddly. But the important thing to remember is that most of the individuals who decide to commit these acts want to do it with guns. They want that shoot-em-up experience they fantasize about. If they couldn't access the guns to do it, it would be far less likely that they would choose another method.

I was referring to the VT shooting to banning semi automatic rifles "only". I won't go into the different ways someone could carry out horrific acts on the the internet. Look it up for yourself. There are a lot of mass killings done without guns around the world. It isn't as hard as you would think. Take all the guns, the crazy MF'ers will still find a way to carry out a act if they want.

EM194007 said:

Degeneratefk said:

Why stop at assault rifles is a weak argument. The point is is its a start. That's what we need. A starting point.

No it isn't at all. If you start with one, then your giving the Government an inch, then they'll take a mile. People need to wake up before your rights are taken from you. And not just only your gun rights!!

Given all that followed gun legislation in other developed countries... I can see why you should express this concern.

Yes. Sarcasm.

Spin the argument: why limit to assault rifles? Why have a line at all? If you think there should be a line somewhere (lest bazookas find themselves in the hands of the wrong guy)... do you think you got it just right? Or do you think some tweaking might be in order?

35,000 deaths by gun per year as well as the biannual mass murder events of the grand variety lead me to think something needs to happen other than status quo.

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

When there is a request for people to turn in weapons it is usually accompanied by a cash compensation plan so that people actually do it.

Well we have that little thing called the fifth amendment here in the USA

I agree, and since this thread is going in circles I will assert my 5th amendment right and remain silent.

Okay, this is just funny and infuriating at the same time. I hope this douchbag gets arrested for lying on his 4473 forms...that would be the laws working as they should and it would set a great example to anyone with violent pasts trying to buy firearms!!!
http://www.progressivestoday.com/leftist-journalist-tries-buy-ar15-gets-denied-violent-past/