Mr. President, do NOT ban assault weapons!

[Conserative Morality]

If you change the automatic pass after 3 days, that will give incentive for anti-gun lobbies to defund the background checks.

Yeah, because the current automatic pass after 3 days definitely doesn't encourage pro-gun lobbies to defund the background checks.

Oh, wait a minute...

[Genivaria]

From.....?

Government reintroduced wolves are the biggie around me. Right next to bear, mountain lion, coyotes, and moose.

I would think a shotgun would be more appropriate...

[Kathmandue]

But should high capacity magazines be allowed?

Absolutely.

And why should the be?

[Greed and Death]

In all seriousness an assault weapons ban probably wouldn't be upheld nowadays if it was challenged using more recent SCOTUS rulings.

Scalia is dead so that is questionable. Do I see them scaling back the 2nd amendment ? No.

[Xadufell]

Semi-automatic rifles aren't "assault weapons", if anything my hammer should be considered an assault weapon because it's black, has a detachable head and a highly ergonomic and dangerous pistol grip.

I tried squinting and tilting my head and I still can't understand how that equation made sense.

To be blunt for you, a Ruger 10/22 with a basic carbine grip and wood finish isn't considered an assault weapon in the US.
However, the same Ruger 10/22 with a pistol grip, folding stock and black matte finish is considered an assault weapon.

[The balkens]

Absolutely.

And why should the be?

why should i have to give up MY rights for YOU to be safe?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Meh, I've never felt the need for an assault weapon outside a warzone. That said, most of the people with them are the responsible gun owners, not the crazy or inexperienced ones, so I don't see a ban helping.

[Ostroeuropa]

Fix the loopholes regarding online sales and gun shows, properly fund the organizations doing background checks, change it so that background checks don't automatically go through within three days time if the Feds don't get around to it by then, registration of handguns nationwide, require a license for handgun possession.

Registration prohibited by law. Requirement for license might make it through. Those background checks thing is to prevent circumventing of the law by creating an artificial backlog as with the tax stamp debacles.

tbh I could get on board with the first two though. Online sales still have to have background check I thought. Gun shows need background checks in IL. I can't speak for other states though I'm sure there are a few that don't require them.

I've been shilling hard for high school classes for gun education like driver's ed. It'd be a cool elective and teach kids how to handle something that is generally apart of American life. I had one at mine and it did wonders. Arguably, the conceal carry class I had to take was even better. If it could meld the explanation of the laws, range time and the practical aspect I got when I was in high school, that would be best. I'm just dreaming I know. That idea has no potential to get done at all.

I'd prefer stuff like that be folded into a general civic participation class that lasts the entirety of education, with gun education being a module, the importance of participation in the political process and joining parties, your rights and how the police and government must treat you, etc.

[Ifreann]

First off, my Sig P226 has been a virtue in stopping would-be muggers. And I'm not saying that because a firearm has saved my life means it can save everyone's, don't be a stereotypical liberal.

Also, because it's rare that people use firearms to defend themselves against crime means that we should entirely pass over the argument?

It's statistically irrelevant. Most defensive uses of guns are with long arms, and most defensive uses of handguns are at home, not when carried in public. Furthermore, gun owners are more likely to be shot in a home assault than non-gun owners, and there's little evidence to suggest that defensive gun use statistically reduces the probability of loss of property or personal injury.

I believe Big Jim P has a statistic floating around that estimates Defensive Gun Uses to be much higher than statistics currently show, because not all uses require a police report, and are therefore available for analysis.

Nonetheless, I'd much rather have the opportunity to defend myself then not and just hope I don't need to.

Other than Big Jim P being ridiculous on his best days, I want to know who exactly shoots someone else and doesn't bother to report it?

Murderers would be my guess.

[Helvetea]

IMO, Military grade assault rifles (And any full-auto guns) should be kept out of civilian hands. Hunting rifles and pistols only.

[Genivaria]

I tried squinting and tilting my head and I still can't understand how that equation made sense.

To be blunt for you, a Ruger 10/22 with a basic carbine grip and wood finish isn't considered an assault weapon in the US.
However, the same Ruger 10/22 with a pistol grip, folding stock and black matte finish is considered an assault weapon.

Under what standard?

[The balkens]

IMO, Military grade assault rifles (And any full-auto guns) should be kept out of civilian hands. Hunting rifles and pistols only.

No.

[Kathmandue]

And why should the be?

why should i have to give up MY rights for YOU to be safe?

Because your said rights were written 2 hundred+ years ago when guns did not have the destructive capability of firing a shit ton of rounds a minute and take only seconds to reload?

[Internationalist Bastard]

I tried squinting and tilting my head and I still can't understand how that equation made sense.

To be blunt for you, a Ruger 10/22 with a basic carbine grip and wood finish isn't considered an assault weapon in the US.
However, the same Ruger 10/22 with a pistol grip, folding stock and black matte finish is considered an assault weapon.

Heh. Blunt.

[Genivaria]

It's statistically irrelevant. Most defensive uses of guns are with long arms, and most defensive uses of handguns are at home, not when carried in public. Furthermore, gun owners are more likely to be shot in a home assault than non-gun owners, and there's little evidence to suggest that defensive gun use statistically reduces the probability of loss of property or personal injury.

Other than Big Jim P being ridiculous on his best days, I want to know who exactly shoots someone else and doesn't bother to report it?

Murderers would be my guess.

Wow they must love the NRA then.

[Ostroeuropa]

If you change the automatic pass after 3 days, that will give incentive for anti-gun lobbies to defund the background checks.

Yeah, because the current automatic pass after 3 days definitely doesn't encourage pro-gun lobbies to defund the background checks.

Oh, wait a minute...

It does, yes. Either side has an incentive to fuck with the funding in order to achieve what they want. The problem is that only one of those sides doing so would be an infringement on the rights of the citizen. It would be better to tax gun sales directly to fund the background check, and keep the 3 day automatic pass. That way defunding would have to be done very publically instead of quietly through a budget. It also shifts the tax burden to the activity that requires the funding, rather than the general public.

[Xadufell]

Absolutely.

And why should the be?

Because the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about "gun control".
And that I can, you can't automatically consider that any "absurd gun add-on" is going to be used for something criminal.

[The balkens]

why should i have to give up MY rights for YOU to be safe?

Because your said rights were written 2 hundred+ years ago when guns did not have the destructive capability of firing a shit ton of rounds a minute and take only seconds to reload?

Welcome to technology progressing.

Gun control is ONLY about control, and if you willing to trade the rights of others for personal safety, you are irredeemable in my eyes.

[The East Marches]

There are no loopholes regarding online sales,

Not true at all, actually. That's a common myth.

and the gun show loophole everyone talks about is private sales which is an entirely other thing.

Yeah, pretty sure it being a 'private sale' shouldn't excuse a lack of background checks.

If I read that correctly, I believe it is referring to person to person sales via the internet. I was thinking of gun broker or something like that in my post. I understand what you mean now.

I'd like it if that barring person to person sales wouldn't include families though. It does in IL and makes me transferring my guns between my brother and I a real pain.

[Kathmandue]

Because your said rights were written 2 hundred+ years ago when guns did not have the destructive capability of firing a shit ton of rounds a minute and take only seconds to reload?

Welcome to technology progressing.

Gun control is ONLY about control, and if you willing to trade the rights of others for personal safety, you are irredeemable in my eyes.

Well get your eyes checked.

[Internationalist Bastard]

why should i have to give up MY rights for YOU to be safe?

Because your said rights were written 2 hundred+ years ago when guns did not have the destructive capability of firing a shit ton of rounds a minute and take only seconds to reload?

The law was written with the idea of being able to defend yourself. The spirit of that doesn't change with the technology.

[Washington Resistance Army]

There are no loopholes regarding online sales,

Not true at all, actually. That's a common myth.

and the gun show loophole everyone talks about is private sales which is an entirely other thing.

Yeah, pretty sure it being a 'private sale' shouldn't excuse a lack of background checks.

Those are private sales, you literally cannot legally buy a gun online (from GunBroker, Buds, direct from manufacturer etc) and have it shipped to your door. That's against the law, the weapon has to be shipped to an FFL who legally has to perform a check. Contacting someone online to buy a gun in person =/= an online sale.

It's not a loophole around anything because private sales have never required background checks, and under the current NICS system it's entirely impossible to do that.

In all seriousness an assault weapons ban probably wouldn't be upheld nowadays if it was challenged using more recent SCOTUS rulings.

Scalia is dead so that is questionable. Do I see them scaling back the 2nd amendment ? No.

True, but I really don't see them walking back on rulings like Heller and Caetano personally.

[Xadufell]

why should i have to give up MY rights for YOU to be safe?

Because your said rights were written 2 hundred+ years ago when guns did not have the destructive capability of firing a shit ton of rounds a minute and take only seconds to reload?

Do you honestly think that the brilliant founding fathers of the USA didn't think that firearms would develop any further? Well then let me take away your technology and give you a printing press for your free speech.

[Genivaria]

And why should the be?

Because the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about "gun control".
And that I can, you can't automatically consider that any "absurd gun add-on" is going to be used for something criminal.

So the Constitution is unalterable all of a sudden?
Damnit guess slavery's still a thing.

Oh and the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about automatic weapons either.

[Kathmandue]

Because your said rights were written 2 hundred+ years ago when guns did not have the destructive capability of firing a shit ton of rounds a minute and take only seconds to reload?

Welcome to technology progressing.

Gun control is ONLY about control, and if you willing to trade the rights of others for personal safety, you are irredeemable in my eyes.

Technological progression is why we have this problem, not that it's a bad thing. In almost every aspect, it's a very good thing. But if there is a longstanding, written law such as the 2nd amendment, it should be changed with the times.