Sorry but I heard from the politicians and pundits and advocates first. They were used as examples long before their voice was heard. Your proposal that they are the engine has no support. Don't deny slippery slope tendency in gun control then. They were out of production for CT. Do you understand that fact? Any "assault weapon" made after 1994 was illegal to possess in CT. A grasp of the basic facts would serve you well in this discussion. Well no one here has presented an example of a problem it has solved, or a problem it would have solved. Your expertise and judgement in previous posts determines the value anyone should place on your opinions on this issue. Slippery slope in action. Previous gun control proved completely ineffective? Solution = even stricter laws. 15 rounds --> 10 rounds ---> 7 rounds ---> ??? You are not proposing a ban you are proposing a retroactive criminalization.
I'm sorry FB but thus far your replies to my pointing out the massive holes and factual errors in your arguments, are ridiculous. I find the entire process futile. As I stated earlier, gun control advocates who point to Newtown are to me obviously not for preventing another Newtown. Major basically admitted this earlier. For people who are for preventing a similar tragedy in the future the starting point would be this. Consider the attacks were in fact this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12) and then see which solution to that problem would not also solve the Newton tragedy. Although you claim to be a gun owner, I find your lack of understanding disturbing when it comes to gun laws. How responsible can you be when you own restricted items yet don't understand the laws surrounding them and how to avoid breaking those law?
So you have set your highest aspirations as merely slightly reducing the number of deaths by replacing them with more disfigured and maimed school children. I set my sights a bit higher. Let's start out by saying the goal is all school violence, and all mental illness that slipped through the cracks.
I've set my sights on reducing violence in general. I'm not trying to pick and choose just to solve the last violent attack. How do you propose doing this? And why only school violence? It's only a tiny fraction of the total violence we deal with, just like the gun violence you claimed was irrelevant. If people don't shoot up schools, they'll shoot up something else.
Or one of the posters on this very board knows one of the family members involved and has verified that it was their own initiative. The families have said time and time and time again that this was all their own doing. But if you prefer to call those families liars, then don't be surprised when people let you know that you're being insulting. Doesn't make the argument you are talking about. So the mother that possessed it was breaking the law? Also localized laws do nothing since they are available just tens of miles away. that seems based on nothing.
Hi! This is how a discussion works. You learn the facts, develop an opinion, and THEN defend your opinion. You seem to have this order mixed up.
tragic inertia on one end, and hyperactive zealotry on the other. For your information, ladies and gentlemen. it's just utterly ridiculous how gun rights have become such a holy pillar in a very zealous and protective society otherwise. methinks energy directed one way should be directed another.
You're the one that said Assault weapons were banned from possession in CT. The son stole the assault weapon from the mother. So it makes sense to question if the mother was breaking the law by having an assault weapon.
Oh your very welcome. Here's the link where you said that. You could just go up and look at the thread, but since you were nice enough to thank me in advance I'll go ahead and link the post. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7836480&postcount=101 I'll also bold the part that I'm talking about. Again this is what you said. So again it makes sense to ask if the mother that lived in CT. and had an assault weapon was breaking the law.
pro-gun owner here. totally support in-depth background checks nationwide. this isn't like buying a boat...it shouldn't be as easy as it is to get a legal firearm
Hers was either made prior to 1994 or it was not an "assault weapon". No she was not breaking the law. Can you do a LITTLE research on this?
I find it telling that the people that know the least are the ones most supporting of gun control and the most informed are the ones against it.
Oh I've done the research and can tell you that the Bushmaster weapon used was indeed legal and didn't fit under their CT weapons ban. However, we do know that he had the 30 round magazines which would have been illegal under the National ban. We also know that some of the children that escaped did so when Lanza was reloading his large capacity magazines. So if he had to reload more times, more children might have escaped.
I really haven't found that. What I've found is that the people who usually are against any and every kind of gun control often resort to calling others ignorant. It's pretty silly, really.
That is not true at all, do you just post things you want or assume to be true without looking it up?
Or it did fit under the ban and was manufactured before 1994. Exactly as I said in the post you quoted and then for some reason inquired about. Good job you have come to realize for yourself information I gave you already? CT had an assault weapons ban that mirrored the 1994 ban and it stayed in place. If you are arguing for an even stricter ban than existed before, good luck. If the magazines were produced before 1994, they would have been completely legal even if the ban didn't sunset in 2004. As they still would be under the new 2013 CT law. So another swing and a miss on your part. I am pointing out the obvious. You have posted things that are just wrong and/or illogical. As this thread is about expanded background checks, and these weapons were purchased through the nics system, your factual errors on them seems all the more irrelevant.
