Well, except that it never - to my knowledge - states as such. It's always talking about a regulated militia as opposed to "everybody gets a gun." Where exactly does it say that the ordinary person can have a gun unsupervised and unregulated?
The term "well-regulated" is archaic, and is better read as "properly functioning," rather than "organized and controlled." Which is apparent from the rest of the amendment; it's silly to say that in order to control the militia we can't take away their guns.
My apologies, but that is complete poppycock. Your "rights" end at other peoples well being.
But this works both ways: your right to safety, my right to self protection; your response is exactly the sort of dismissal of others' rights I was speaking of. I don't think anyone is arguing that we can't take guns from people who illegally shoot others.
NOBODY is saying "take away your firearm,"
since 1934 there have been two deaths in the US by legally licensed automatic weapons
- Automatic weapons of any kind - machine pistols, assault rifles, etc etc - should be banned.
Automatic weapons are a brilliant, shining example that regulation and background checks work
: vending machines kill more people by magnitudes. And yet cries everywhere to ban, not because of facts but because you don't feel they 'need it'. This is the sort of thing that completely justifies the NRA extremists resisting every effort at responsible regulation, which is frustrating for those of us in the middle.
...so? It's all about reducing the capacity to kill people. If nobody uses assault weapons, then what's the harm in banning it? But the whole thing is that banning a certain type of weapon is only one aspect of it...more than just a blanket ban on certain weapons should be implemented. And who cares if only a certain amount of people have been killed by them? There are still weapons you don't want in the public domain
Really? 'You're not using that right very much, and I don't feel comfortable with your having it, so we should take it away irregardless of what the pesky facts say'?
Also, it's not that 'assault weapons' aren't used. It's the fact that most are bulky and more difficult to carry illegally or casually, so smaller handguns are present for more crimes of premeditation and passion.
Just a quick note - flash suppressors don't really do all that much where the overall noticeability of the firearm is concerned, but they certainly reduce the "Ow, fuck, my eyes!" factor by quite significant extent. I've never understood that particular regulation...
*Nods* and pistol grips are purely an ergonomic comfort issue, and the placement of the magazine is simple design. Non assault weapons fire the same bullets, at the same rate, in the same way as assault weapons.
Question: does anyone oppose the idea of having gun show sales follow the same rules as gun store sales?
I've always thought the gun show thing was the height of idiocy, especially in the current age of digital records and wifi.
IMHO gun possession (note this as distinct from ownership) should require a license (in the same way as driving) which would be obtained beforehand and would involve the background check and knowledge test (and drug test?). Purchasing a weapon would simply require a check to ensure the license is in good standing.
And while so-called assault weapons may only play a small part in actual gun crime, I would still say restrictions on certain types of weapons can be useful in changing attitudes, work the way seatbelt regulation did.
I don't follow your logic.
If you ban assault weapons, then you're limiting what these shooters have access to
So you're forcing them to choose alternatives that are more likely to be used in a killing?
to the best of my knowledge - a shooter COULD pick up an AW, step into a busy street and fire off 30 bullets before anybody knew what was going on. That's thirty potential deaths. Whereas if they only had access to a standard pistol, they would maybe get four or five shots off, if that.
Again, the same bullets, at the same rate, in the same way, using the same magazines.
And are you honestly saying that the public should be allowed to buy grenade launchers and RPG's? Really?
Not an assault weapon and already heavily regulated. To my knowledge, nobody has ever been killed by an RPG in the US; certainly not a legally licensed one.
I would appreciate it if you didn't strawman my position as "I don't know what they do and they look scary so I want to take away ya guns." I know exactly what the fuck these things do
I think the issue here is that, based on what you're objecting to, you don't seem to understand what an assault weapon is.
only 13% of gun crime happens in gun free zones, so they're apparently safer (most of the time).
I hear this number a lot, and have to give it a funny look every time. By my understanding of how much of the urban terrain comprises a 'gun free zone', that number isn't actually very impressive. Someone correct me, or is this just one of those meaningless statistics that people use because statistics?
So, how about no purchases allowed by convicted felons? People with outstanding arrest warrants? People on no-fly lists? Can we agree on these points?
I'm not entirely sure how people get on no-fly lists, but my understanding is that it can be fairly capricious. Otherwise these seem obvious, and are justified limits on rights in the context of criminal activity.
There could be some further interpretation, but I'd rather issues like dog stealing as a felony be addressed by changing those laws, not opening every felony to subjective review.
Any type of warrant. Simple bench warrants can usually be resolved fairly simply (by appearing in court as directed).