I don't personally think anyone straight up said, "do nothing", but I could be wrong. But let's just keep cranium external to colon and think this one out logically shall we? (By the way, if its sounds like I'm pissed.... I'm getting there. TBA when I am.)Quick disclaimer, I'm not in/with the f@%king NRA, I'm not a god damned 'teabagger' whatever the hell that is, and if you're are partisan douche bag, get over yourself and keep reading, you MIGHT just learn something.
We can expect 14 to 20 anti-gun bills. The current Democrat package includes:
A ban on an undetermined number of semi-automatic firearms (No grandfather clause)
Do you actually know how many different varieties of 'semi-automatic' firearms exist, and that the mere implications of such laws could mean that the most upstanding of citizens becomes a criminal by mere ownership of something they once thought could protect them?
A ban on magazines of over ten rounds (No grandfather clause).
Oh cool, do you realize how many companies and employees something like this could effect? Oh sure, they have the military and LE, but while those companies are still allowed to sell to the civilian market it keeps people employed. Tell me again how your somekind of expert that more than ten rounds of ammunition are required to end a life and I'll explain how piss poor aiming, and bad shot placement are counter productive to some objectives. "Why do civilians need over 10 rounds?" Let's see, off the top of my head, high risk security operators, (aka private military contractors) come to mind. This one I know quite a bit about actually.... they are not 'issued' a firearm by an agency or the "principle" (look up the term citing security and high risk and you'll see what I mean.), they must be intimately aware of their choice of 'tools' as it were. Banning the elements required to do their job puts them as well as the principle at great risk. They are after all, 'civilian' contractors.
Making an individual with a violent misdemeanor a “prohibited person” re: gun ownership.
Define for me if you will, "violent misedemeanor". I'd readily admit I qualified for such a label and all while protecting my wife and parent's home from her psychotic ex. (All charges where dropped on me and actions justified by a court, but a bullsh** charge none the less.)
A ban on private sales by requiring universal background checks.
Tell me again how you think criminals are going to abide by this sort of ruling, and further more, how I should just because someone said so.... what goes on behind closed doors is either no one else's business, or no one elses worry right?
A waiting period on background checks that will kill gun shows.
Oh, that's right, somehow gun shows are to blame, there a damn gun out there every few seconds killing someone... nevermind the asshole pulling the trigger, arrest the gun!!!!! Please, its well known that democrats for whatever reason hate capitolism, but this is just getting silly now. (by the way, I'm not a Republican, so save your counterpoint bullsh** which may/may not sound heroic to your party.
Rollback of concealed carry on college campuses.
"Ok students, you have a right to feel protected.... SIKE!!!!! No you don't!!!" WTF? Seriously? "Indian giver" seems a suitable term here. I can think of several college girls who might have serious concerns over this... oh are they gun-nuts too? Maybe they shouldn't be so cute, maybe wear a god damned burka or something so they don't lead their would-be attackers on...... wow.
More strict enforcement of gun confiscation related to restraining orders
Did you know a restraining order can be granted EVEN IF THE "OFFENDER" IS DEEMED NOT A THREAT?!?!?! Now tell me how I'd know this... oh that's right the wife's psychotic ex, yeah.... when he almost forfeit his life in my parents driveway that day and decided to file, he was granted one but even the judge agreed it was more for MY protection than his, because if HE violated the protection order, I'd be justified in my actions.
Wider use of mental health treatment information for gun control purposes
Granted I don't want crazy asses to have a gun, but I can think of a million unregulated (and impossible to regulate) ways to obtain one, so until we get some sort of pre-cognisant police force to locate would-be anus faced assassins, I think I'll keep vigilant about my firearms ensuring that no one touches them unless I want to, and I carry the ability to stop a nut case with a well placed shot. How's that sound?
I'm not directly attacking you archer, I'm more/less attacking the situation at hand and all those that somehow think that banning firearms will do more good than harm. To say that people want to do 'nothing' is a bullsh** statement. Yes, there can be improvements on background checks to ensure the mentally ill do not have a chance pursuing that route of obtaining a firearm, but to think that banning the rest of the country from having the things that are already in use is completely impractical and illogical. Given the amount of firearms in the civilian sector alone, and factoring in the nonsense of the anti-gunners, you'd expect to see FAR more crimes than actually exist on any documented report. Its suggestive that because I own guns, I've committed crimes with them which couldn't be farther from the truth. Again, I'd ask everyone to keep their craniums external to their colons and seriously think this one through.
Badger
Now this is a debate! Keep showing us how it is done BadgerKustoms!
FredHayek wrote: And none of the proposed would have changed Newtown or Aurora.
Of course they would have. James Holmes legally purchased an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine, firing 27 shots in 30 seconds. More people could have escaped had he been limited to a 10 round magazine.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Is it not possible that just as we require those who drive buses or propane trucks to be subject to special licensing that we require those who wish to purchase high capacity magazines, body armor or armor piercing ammunition to also undergo some special scrutiny? If not, why not?
Gee, maybe we need to start a new board to ban Fred, since nothing he posts adds to constructive discussion. Oh yeah, he is a conservative, so he gets a free pass.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: Gee, maybe we need to start a new board to ban Fred, since nothing he posts adds to constructive discussion. Oh yeah, he is a conservative, so he gets a free pass.
I offered to require background checks for all firearms purchases including face to face.
But your point about limiting it to only 10 round mags has a number of issues. Just because you pass a law all high capacity magazines don't magically disappear.
1) Do you go door to door confiscating these? This would be an incredible expense for limited gain. How much more in taxes/debt do you want to pay to support this?
2) Grandfather and don't permit new hi-capacity magazines to be bought? Then there will be a increase in price but if James Holmes had the federal grant money to buy 6000 rounds of ammo and four firearms, he also had the money to buy a 100 round magazine for $1000.
3) And suppose you don't allow the sale of magazines from one person to another. Brilliant! A guy who is willing to kill people and blow up first responders isn't going to not buy a magazine because he might have to do some jail time.
4) And one other key point about hi-cap magazine bans. When the last AWB passed making the sale of high capacity magazines illegal to civvies, cases of military magazines illegally made it to the civvie market.
The people are prospective mass murderers willing to suicide so I don't think breaking a few laws, even felonies are going to dissuade them.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
What has been pointed out, time after time, (and conveniently ignored by you), is that many laws are not designed to PREVENT a despicable act from occurring but to give the legal system the power and tools it needs to put the perp away (or execute him) for those acts.
If someone is a convicted felon, and they are in possession of something that is banned (including hi-cap magazines), I agree...You aren't going to keep that slime-bag from getting it. But if you catch him IN POSSESSION of something that carries a LOOOOONG prison sentence, and LE finds out about it, "Say g'bye"....
Your prerecorded talking-points are getting tiresome.
Officials in a small Utah town want to make sure every head of household has a firearm and knows how to use it, and they want to give school teachers training with guns too.
IN NOVEMBER 2014, WE HAVE A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN OUT THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND ONE-THIRD OF THE SENATE! DONT BLOW IT!
“When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work, Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; all night having sex. Only whit man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.” Indian Chief Two Eagles
FredHayek wrote: And none of the proposed would have changed Newtown or Aurora.
Of course they would have. James Holmes legally purchased an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine, firing 27 shots in 30 seconds. More people could have escaped had he been limited to a 10 round magazine.
But didn't that 100 round drum magazine jam, essentially rendering his AR useless? There is a reason official tactical LEOs and others don't use those things. Trained people can change a normal magazine in 2 -3 seconds.
Edit to add: Felons already do face significant sanctions for being in possession of a firearm. That doesn't seem to have any effect, However I see nothing wrong with increasing those penalties including for those who knowingly supply firearms to felons.
FredHayek wrote: And none of the proposed would have changed Newtown or Aurora.
Of course they would have. James Holmes legally purchased an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine, firing 27 shots in 30 seconds. More people could have escaped had he been limited to a 10 round magazine.
But didn't that 100 round drum magazine jam, essentially rendering his AR useless? There is a reason official tactical LEOs and others don't use those things. Trained people can change a normal magazine in 2 -3 seconds.
lol I wanted to point that out too. 30 round magazines are more trouble free and there are tens of millions of them out there.
Plus you-tube 3-gun matches and watch how fast those guys can change out magazines.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
