If they are convicted they should never be a cop again and be locked up. No second chances! None! A reprimand or warning simply won't do, especially when in a job of protecting and serving our people.
The issue with gun control arguements is that many people voicing an opinion have very little knowledge on the subject. For example: comment: ban all semi automatics Comment: hunting rifles and pistols are ok The comments contradict each other as almost every pistol is semi automatic. And many hunting rifles are semi automatic. (There are some who would argue any rifle is a hunting rifle) And this of course ignores that the vast majority of deaths is from pistols. Instead of blind senseless banning, do what most other countries do... require strict permits to posses semi automatic weapons, including pistols.
When Obama tried to even make stricter background checks the Republicans shot down every measure. People should have to get a license of type like many countries that can be revoked if they fail to meet certain requirements each year, which are based on mental health, drug and alcohol abuse and criminal history.
I think you meant to say automatic and not semi-automatic? If you hunt birds, most use a semi-automatic shotgun. Most pistols (outside of a single action revolver or single shot) are semi-automatic. I am a legal gun owner because I hunt and like to collect them. Having said that, I don’t see any reason for any citizen to have any type of automatic weapon period. You don’t hunt with an assault rifle. It’s either illegal or there are strict guidelines about it. Also, an assault rifle is about the worst self defense weapon you can use in a home invasion.
Do you see any reason owners of guns should not have stricter requirements for ownership? By that I mean people who are law abiding citizens having no problems getting them, as long as they aren't diagnosed with a mental disorder, or have an alcohol or drug problem resulting in arrest or DUI. Then I also think you have to eliminate licensing for people who have been charged with child abuse or animal cruelty, assault or any violent crimes. None of those types need a weapon in their hand in my mind.
I certainly wouldn’t be opposed to making firearm sales meet the same requirements as you have to meet to get a license to carry. I don’t know every states law on this (I assume they are similar) but in Texas you can’t get a CHL if: 1) you have ever been convicted of a felony (your examples are all felony’s) 2) you have had a class A or B misdemeanor in the past 5 years before applying and various other guideline/restrictions. http://www.stateoftexaschl.com/chl-faqs/texaschl-eligibility/ Having said that, that will likely not happen in our lifetime and people sell guns privately. There are more guns than many people realize in the US and it isn’t going to just magically get fixed throwing tougher laws into the purchasing process.
I've got guns, I see it as a constitutional right as well as responsibility to own it safely. Now, the bullet shortage.... (And bullet costs) That's annoying.
Why does it take so damn long to get a suppressor? It's not like hollywood.......they don't actually "silence" a gun. They just make is safer to shoot without hearing protection. Crazy. Take suppressors off of the NFA list and replace them with magazines with a capacity over 5.Pretty much everyone wins. Magazine companies get to sell a crap ton of new mags. Gun control advocate get serious restrictions on semi auto firearms, and gun owners get to keep their current weapons--albeit with material restrictions on their firepower.
I think gun control advocates have no clue how loud a silencer really is just like they think AR15s are automatic weapons. Too many movies and TV shows. I agree they should take silencers off the NFA. Actually it might be backwards. Put all semi-auto weapons on the NFA and take silencers off.
partisan hack Jonathan Turley about how gun controllers keep shooting themselves in the foot New York aims big on gun control — and misses, again https://jonathanturley.org/2021/12/...er-latest-legislative-misfire-on-gun-control/ New York aims big on gun control — and misses, again BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/18/21 10:30 AM EST In hunting, there is an old adage: “aim small, miss small.” The point is that, if you want to hit a target, aim for a small part rather than the whole target. It is often the difference between a total miss and a marginal hit. In the area of Second Amendment law, the most promising legislative measures are the ones that aim small on the edges of the constitutionally-based right — the strategy used by abortion opponents. The problem is that politicians rarely want to aim small when they are trying to score big with voters. An example is the recent New York public nuisance law seeking to make gun manufacturers liable for gun crime. Not only is the law likely to be a large miss, it will likely deliver another blow to gun control efforts by adding precedent protecting Second Amendment rights. I’ve discussed the New York public nuisance law aimed at gun manufacturers, a law that doubles down on a failed legal theory using torts as a substitute for direct legislative bans or barriers. As expected, gun groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) as well as 14 firearms manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are now filing suit. They should have an excellent shot at a preliminary injunction. The New York nuisance law was heralded by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo as a response to the new "epidemic" facing New Yorkers. There is, of course, nothing new about gun violence in New York, but Cuomo and other New York politicians knew that promising to crush the gun industry never fails to garner support in the Empire State … and few people hold you responsible when you aim big and miss big. The problem is that major Democratic cities are delivering lasting self-inflicted wounds to gun control efforts with poorly conceived and poorly drafted measures. In 2008, the District of Columbia in 2008 brought us District of Columbia v. Heller, the watershed decision declaring that the Second Amendment protects the individual right of gun possession. In 2010, Chicago brought us McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the Court declared that that right is incorporated against state and local government. However, no state has done more for the Second Amendment than New York. In 2020, the city triggered a controversial appeal in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York. The law barred the transfer of unloaded and locked firearms from one's residence to anywhere other than a small number of designated shooting ranges within the city. At its passage, New York officials pounded their chests and promised they were certain of the constitutionality of the law and would litigate it all the way to the Supreme Court. When the court accepted the case for review, however, the same officials scrambled to dismiss the case as moot after later rescinding the provisions. The Court was not amused by New York's gaming the judicial system. New York leaders had forced costly litigation only to pull the law at the last minute to avoid a likely finding of unconstitutionality. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas specifically called out New York for “manipulating” the docket by withdrawing an unconstitutional law just before a final opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined in the condemnation and noted, in light of the Second Circuit decision in the case, that “some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.” The Court notably then proceeded to take a new case challenging a different New York law by the same lead plaintiff: the New York State Rifle Association. That case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and deals with the Sullivan Act of 1911, giving local officials discretion over who can carry concealed guns based on a showing of "proper cause." Bruen could now result in a major enhancement of Second Amendment rights for concealed carry permits — negating a host of laws across the country. New York is not done with its circular firing squad on gun control. The New York nuisance law was crafted after a series of failures of similar such nuisance laws in areas ranging from paint to, yes, guns. Indeed, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, giving gun sellers and manufacturers immunity from liability arising out of the criminal misuse of firearms. It is political merit — rather than legal merit — that has often propelled New York anti-gun laws. In this latest effort, the state sought to aim big by using an exception under the law if a company “knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms. If allowed, the exception would swallow the rule, in a law expressly directed at preempting such nuisance lawsuits. Cuomo himself made the case against the law by publicly declaring that it was designed “to reinstate public nuisance liability for gun manufacturers.” He declared the New York law as doing precisely what Congress forbade: “The only industry in the United States of America immune from lawsuits are the gun manufacturers, but we will not stand for that any longer.” The statement was remarkably moronic in a preemption case, but also showed the contempt not just for the courts but the public at large. Cuomo had no qualms in admitting that the law was a work-around of the federal law because it was more of a political than legal effort. Now, the courts are likely to deliver another loss for New York and another big win for the Second Amendment. That is the great irony of all of this. Gun activists often target "pro-gun states" and bemoan their legislative efforts to expand gun rights. However, the real damage being done to the gun control movement is by its own hand. Indeed, as shown this week, New York is the gift that keeps on giving to the Second Amendment. The state has thus far been about as effective in curtailing gun rights as Monty Python’s “Judean People's Front Crack Suicide Squad” was effective in combating Roman occupation. After all, who needs Texas when gun rights advocates have New York? Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Most gun deaths are committed in the inner city by young males who don't buy guns at Walmart. If liberals and the media were honest about gun crimes then you may could make headway with the NRA fanatics. If you keep focusing on the rare mass shooting trying to take away guns fr yes gun nuts, but law abiding citizens then you will never make any progress. The first key in addressing guns is addressing where the majority of gun violence is
As if gun worshippers would even blink about inner cities young males killing each other. They don't care about suicides, about elementary kids being slaughtered, about every single kid in the US training for that occasional every few years if not yearly gun violence at their schools.
you said "As if gun worshippers would even blink about inner cities young males killing each other" and again, I think that "2A worshippers" are generally law-and-order types (at the risk of overgeneralizing) who would support aggressive if potentially problematic urban policing in places like St. Louis and Chicago.
