I don't feel blanket bans have lasting power. As a gun nut, I know exactly how attached I am to my own assault rifle. Too easy to overturn. I feel putting more emphasis on difficulties getting the gun and notifying authorities has more chance of working. Applegate's notion of yearly renewed gun licenses requiring face time, registration of assault weapons, requirements of a whole extra level of approval just to get one (sheriff's approval is necessary for certain things, and I do want there to be a person who can make an arbritrary decision--if the police who had to visit Mateen's house for domestic complaints been consulted, they would have denied him), insurance that would pay attention to 'are you a gun nut who likes vintage war weapons (like me) or are you more interested in the most modern cutting edge military weapons?'--I'm quite sure that insurance would jack up the cost astronomically for something like the Sig Sauer MCX so that only the super wealthy could play with it and people of high threat groups would become limited to less lethal weapons.
Yes. I would even like laws that mimic the car safety laws requiring cars be built in ways that make it harder to get killed by them. Weapons available for civilian purchase should be designed to be incapable of upgrading to full auto.
Urgh. Yes. My husband just watched some argument that preventing people on terror watch lists from buying guns will "let them KNOW" that the authorities are watching them.
I suggest you go reasonably troll a different website. I personally have no patience for sea lions at the moment and only the knowledge of your inevitable sea lion response keeps me from answering your question honestly. Also, if you keep a loaded semi-automatic weapon accessible for home defense, you are not awesomely smart, as it more likely to get stolen and/or used against you regardless of your alleged Marine Training. I declare you a high functioning Troll and liar. This being the internet and all, you are as likely to work for FedEx as to be what you claim.
I agree. Last ban is case in point. However, I think it's a good start, and I think it needs to be (as I said above) about function, not cosmetics. This would let a fetishist have his/her .22 single shot (or whatever) that looks exactly like something a Navy Seal would carry (without any of the capability), but restrict firearms that don't look particularly military, but actually function like a military weapon (e.g.: hi-powered semi-automatics with high-capacity magazines).On top of that, it needs to be MUCH, MUCH more difficult to buy and own any gun. Background checks. Regular mandatory type-specific safety training and certification. Etc., etc.I would gladly give up any firearm I own if it means we can get some functional gun-control legislation in this country.
Regarding looks vs. function, can't help but remember an old OMNI story about a modern man who ends up in an Idiocracy style future. He was confused by the cars, which all looked like supercool, ultra-fast race cars...but drove ridiculously slowly. (Because secret geniuses/genii? designed them that way for the simpletons.)
Assault rifles are rapid-fire magazine fed automatic rifles which are already banned. Not sure what your point was about the AR-15. She used the term AR-15. So okay? The infantry uses semi-automatic rifles.
Doesn't Walmart have specials?
Even though many of those trolls would actually be worse off if we did the former more than the latter.
He can't tell me what to do anymore! I call my gun "Horatio" and that's that!
I don't feel blanket bans have lasting power. As a gun nut, I know exactly how attached I am to my own assault rifle. Too easy to overturn. I feel putting more emphasis on difficulties getting the gun and notifying authorities has more chance of working. Applegate's notion of yearly renewed gun licenses requiring face time, registration of assault weapons, requirements of a whole extra level of approval just to get one (sheriff's approval is necessary for certain things, and I do want there to be a person who can make an arbritrary decision--if the police who had to visit Mateen's house for domestic complaints been consulted, they would have denied him), insurance that would pay attention to 'are you a gun nut who likes vintage war weapons (like me) or are you more interested in the most modern cutting edge military weapons?'--I'm quite sure that insurance would jack up the cost astronomically for something like the Sig Sauer MCX so that only the super wealthy could play with it and people of high threat groups would become limited to less lethal weapons.
5.56 isn't legal for hunting? Never heard that. Its sure legal to buy for range shooting. Pretty sure my dad used it to hunt with.
Yes. I would even like laws that mimic the car safety laws requiring cars be built in ways that make it harder to get killed by them. Weapons available for civilian purchase should be designed to be incapable of upgrading to full auto.
I have used the wrong AKs, then. They are long enough to make a good brick. You can't swing them for shit.
Urgh. Yes. My husband just watched some argument that preventing people on terror watch lists from buying guns will "let them KNOW" that the authorities are watching them.
I suggest you go reasonably troll a different website. I personally have no patience for sea lions at the moment and only the knowledge of your inevitable sea lion response keeps me from answering your question honestly. Also, if you keep a loaded semi-automatic weapon accessible for home defense, you are not awesomely smart, as it more likely to get stolen and/or used against you regardless of your alleged Marine Training. I declare you a high functioning Troll and liar. This being the internet and all, you are as likely to work for FedEx as to be what you claim.
It was written before the was a standing army. If I understand correctly, having a standing army was a matter of controversy at the time.
I agree. Last ban is case in point. However, I think it's a good start, and I think it needs to be (as I said above) about function, not cosmetics. This would let a fetishist have his/her .22 single shot (or whatever) that looks exactly like something a Navy Seal would carry (without any of the capability), but restrict firearms that don't look particularly military, but actually function like a military weapon (e.g.: hi-powered semi-automatics with high-capacity magazines).On top of that, it needs to be MUCH, MUCH more difficult to buy and own any gun. Background checks. Regular mandatory type-specific safety training and certification. Etc., etc.I would gladly give up any firearm I own if it means we can get some functional gun-control legislation in this country.
I mostly agree.
Regarding looks vs. function, can't help but remember an old OMNI story about a modern man who ends up in an Idiocracy style future. He was confused by the cars, which all looked like supercool, ultra-fast race cars...but drove ridiculously slowly. (Because secret geniuses/genii? designed them that way for the simpletons.)
I wonder who ties your shoes for you in the morning. Not worth any of my time. Adios.....
While I applaud your awareness and efforts, but 100% safely? The chances of your grandkids getting their hands on them are completely totally zero?
Assault rifles are rapid-fire magazine fed automatic rifles which are already banned. Not sure what your point was about the AR-15. She used the term AR-15. So okay? The infantry uses semi-automatic rifles.
I have one and know many people that have them and have never used them for hunting humans.