Ban them in general with special licensees to obtain them.
Ban them in general with special licensees to obtain them.
there is no need for automatic weapons, and semi-automatics were banned, and then unbanned. so go ahead, get rid of them.
it's a lot harder to shoot up a large place with just a pistol or two without someone getting you, because clip sizes are small compared to. does that mean it'll prevent a lot of armed robberies, or situations where people use semi or automatic weapons? I'm sure in some cases, yes, some people won't go through the trouble to obtain the guns illegally. who is to assume that psycho going psycho is a gun collector? the point is to *prevent* it. This isn't them saying oh, this'll prevent people with pistols robbing convenience stores! Try understanding that.Last time I checked criminals don't follow laws or bans.
Yes, true. But instead of 2 pistols with 17 rounds each for a total of 34, you're getting 20. And instead of carrying 4 clips for 68 bullets, you're carrying 7 clips for 70 bullets. It will only make it more difficult, and therein lies the reasoning for this kind of change.
Also a change like this is generally one step along the path. As much as you probably would not like to hear that
Not necessarily true, you can own a fully automatic weapon after going through an extremely lengthy and expensive process, and for a magazine that holds more than 30 rounds, I can go to a store/shooting range right now and buy a 100 round drum magazine if I wanted to, will I? No it is unnecessary.
Things that jump out at me about your post.
1. it wasn't the worst school shooting in US history,
2. You want to use an incident where HANDGUNS and ONLY handguns were used in an attempt to ban assault weapons,
3. the House of Representatives is controlled by the GOP, meaning Dems wont be introducing ANYthing, at best they'll ASK the Speaker's permission, and thus it becomes HIS prerogative;
4. Why have MORE legislation, when the ones that exist aren't being enforced as it is;
5. Fast and Furious, seems there were already laws in place about assualt weapons and they were ignored by the very same administration in an attempt to allow weapons to flow into another country without their knowledge or consent.
All that said, the solution isn't MORE laws, its enforce the ones that already exist.
--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.
Definitely against this. People who are willing to commit such heinous crimes will not care about the law.
I would support a bill requiring people who own such weapons to have approved gun safes so they don't get stolen.
I'm still surprised it expired, damn people like Bush...
Sorry but using an AR-15 or other similar weapons for "hunting" is a BS excuse, they only "hunting" they're used for nominally is the human variety. Now mind you I'm in no way against having other firearms readily available, like handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. as our family owns those, but there is no real reason to have an assault rifle unless you're in the military.
"In Europe we don't have any mass killing rampages!"
*Looks at WWI and WWII*
You're right Europe. You're so far ahead of us. Until we start a world war we can never be on par.