Okay, let's see 1. Good idea 2. No. 3. Sure, why not? 4. Good idea 5. I can't sign on to that, too much of a slippery slope 6. What is your definition of a high capacity magazine? 10? 20? 30? 50? 100? Sounds like more of an ineffective "feel good" move than anything. I'll pass.
2. Why not? We used to have one until it expired under George W. 6. My definition, like the law we used to have, is more than 10.
2. I think it was a poorly written law and I'm not as afraid of AR's as the average gun phobic person seems to be. I think the idea that most people have in their heads of an "assault rifle" is pretty far from reality. If it had a different name, people would feel differently about them. The name is just menacing though right? ASSAULT!!!! Now the automatic weapon ban on the other hand is a good idea. 6. Just sounds like an ineffective "feel good" type of thing. I just think we should focus on things that might actually matter. Even discussing the possibility of either bill would do nothing more than have people load up on assault rifles and "high capacity" magazines and there's no way either would pass congress.
Guns are intended to be lethal. Cars are not. Car accidents are ACCIDENTS. Gun murders are not accidents. Cars are registered, drivers are licensed, cars require yearly inspections, and drivers must be insured. Gun ownership requires nothing, nada, zilch. Any wacko can walk into Academy and buy a gun for any purpose. Banning cars would bring a halt to the entire world economy. Gun control simply puts common sense measures in place to reduce gun violence. There is no valid comparison whatsoever. Pretending there is one is nonsense, the type of nonsense that has become typical of modern conservatism and you pretty much. 10,000 murders a year is not an acceptable cost for unfettered access to weapons. A lot of rights guaranteed by the Constitution have limits placed on them, the 2nd amendment should be no different.
And yet the only one of those that are deemed important enough to be constitutionally guaranteed is the right to keep and bear arms.... Also, again, alcohol is almost entirely harmful and it causes 88,000 deaths a year....yet that's deemed an acceptable cost. Maybe you should set your sights on taking non-constitutionally protected things away from Americans. You'd have a better case and some of them are MUCH more deadly.
People know what assault weapons are... 6. This is where I just cannot take you seriously. How can you just brush by ammo capacity as if it's some irrelevant part of the discussion? And people are already loading up on assault weapons and high capacity mags...
Maybe we should ban soft drinks, the obesity epidemic kills MEEEEELLIONS! You really don't understand the difference between personal choice, accidents, and murder apparently. Again, lots of rights guaranteed by the Constitution have limits and restrictions. You're arguing a stupid talking point.
Yeah I never heard of a mass murder where a person started hurling full cans of Tecate at people's heads at a high rate.
I don't see it being THAT big a deal. Most gun violence isn't done using assault weapons or with high capacity magazines, both of which would still be available even if the bans went into place. I'm pretty sure it was illegal to have assault weapons in Paris and it didn't really help that situation and that's damn near the only type of situation where people use those weapons to commit crimes. Handguns are the most common weapon used yet all of the focus is on assault weapons...hence why I said it was an ineffective "feel good" move.
Hey, go nuts, I know people like you live for restricting the freedom of your neighbors because you think it is in their best interest. I wouldn't put any of that past you. The point isn't "stupid" simply because you either refuse or are incapable of grasping it. Take some personal responsibility here.
You can't address the point, you have to resort to the freedom card. Are you really that incapable of having an intelligent debate? You've compared accidents with murders as if that was some great point. Then you compared personal choice with murders. Wow, you really suck at this. Take some personal responsibility for your incredible ignorance and your overwhelming need to share it.
The whole god damned point is that you cast a very wide net and try to reduce the overall level of violence. You don't rely on individual incidents to make the decisions. There will never be a end-all-be-all solution and you'll never stop 100% of the incidents, but that fact shouldn't dissuade us from doing anything at all, though. Going back to laws from a few decades ago is a good ****ing place to start. Here's what a favorite Republican had to say about it in 1991: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
You fundamentally don't understand the concept of civil liberties not being something to be trampled so there's not much I can do with you. Also, those alcohol deaths aren't all the person drinking so it's not just a personal choice issue. The number of DUI related deaths is equal to the non-suicide gun deaths per year. The point is that alcohol related deaths and homicides are not seen as a valid excuse to ban the sale and consumption of alcohol. Those are seen as unfortunate consequences of something that people should have a right to do.....AND IT'S NOT EVEN CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED. You're trying to make a case that firearms are a public danger, yet there are many greater public dangers out there that aren't constitutionally protected. Since people like you won't be happy unless you are restricting the rights of others, why not set your aim on something that you actually might be able to take away from people? My point is that most of the reaction is to the few incidents and the measures you seek to take are certainly that type of thing. Maybe you make some of those who seek to go on rampages use slightly different weapons, but the results will be the same. Assault rifles and high capacity magazines are not a serious threat and are a tiny percentage of what you think is an unacceptable problem yet they seem to get a disproportionally high percent of the attention when people want to make feel good legislation after one of these events.
I appreciate your acceptance. It isn't so much about understanding though, because I think we all pretty much understand the trade-offs, but about values and priorities. But, the reason why I wanted to post was to object your characterization of the right to bear arms as the free expression of the will of the people, which really wasn't right, and to object to your false equivalencies with other phenomena. On the one hand, you want to say guns are a special case and I agree, and on the other you want to compare it to other things like it's not special. On alcohol, again I think it's a false equivalency. Drinking can be dangerous to others, but we do try to resolve those dangers to others in other ways like laws against drinking and driving and public intoxication, regulation of drinking establishments, insurance, legal liabilities, safer equipment, AA, MADD, etc. But anyway, though I'd miss my wine, I'm not terribly opposed to prohibition, just like I generally support prohibition on illicit drugs, gambling and prostitution. I don't think the externalities of drinking are severe enough to deserve a ban and I think our society can function with alcohol, tobacco, and probably mar1juana. But, I'm more than happy to regulate and mitigate the **** out of all 3. I doubt you have the appetite for as much regulation on guns as I have for regulation on alcohol.
Put it, the gun serial numbers, in a database, of guns, so the feds can audit your inventory, and, cross-reference the serial numbers...against the ballistics, of the gun...for any recent crimes. Oooh, I know nothing about firearms.
