Why is an "Assault Weapons" Ban even on the table?

[BoberFett]

Originally Posted by highland145

Why couldn't they be?

I'm pretty sure C&Rs have some transfer limits, other than limits on what types of firearms can be transferred under that license.

[blankslate]

Originally Posted by xj0hnx

Huh? So what? No one should buy a gun until we have solved an unsolvable problem? That's dumb.

Sane law-abiding people should be able to buy firearms (with some restrictions depending on what they want) but both camps in the gun control debate....

"Guns are only useful for killing"

"Omg they're going to grab my guns"


...are engaging in the same old debate instead of addressing a common issue amongst nearly all of the national attention grabbing Gun Massacres in a thoughtful manner.

Which is the access to firearms that these mentally unbalanced people had.

But oh well let's get back to the popcorn.

[blankslate]

Originally Posted by buckshot24

Them buying these guns didn't help with childhood obesity either. Damn righties!

^idiot post. You do that a lot.

[highland145]

Originally Posted by BoberFett

I'm pretty sure C&Rs have some transfer limits, other than limits on what types of firearms can be transferred under that license.

Yep. Called a friend that has one. Supposed to be for personal use. Can sell a rifle down the line but there is some undefined limit that you'd better not cross.

[werepossum]

Originally Posted by blankslate

Sane law-abiding people should be able to buy firearms (with some restrictions depending on what they want) but both camps in the gun control debate....

"Guns are only useful for killing"

"Omg they're going to grab my guns"


...are engaging in the same old debate instead of addressing a common issue amongst nearly all of the national attention grabbing Gun Massacres in a thoughtful manner.

Which is the access to firearms that these mentally unbalanced people had.

But oh well let's get back to the popcorn.

Because that's the debate. Anti-gun people are always looking for ways to infringe on the Second Amendment because they do not believe individuals have the right to be armed, period. The left has been pretty open about their intent to use this tragedy to remove some individual freedom; whether or not you agree with that position, its existence is not debatable. The position of pro-Second Amendment people must then be focused on preventing this infringement. If the left chose instead to address mentally unbalanced people' access to firearms (other than by removing them from non-mentally unbalanced people), that would be the debate.

[blankslate]

Originally Posted by werepossum

If the left chose instead to address mentally unbalanced people' access to firearms (other than by removing them from non-mentally unbalanced people), that would be the debate.

Both sides should focus on that instead of retreating to the same dumb talking points.

If only Thomas Jefferson could've effectively nipped Marbury vs. Madison in the bud.
(I like obscure oddly tangential references)

*edit*

To the OP. the purpose is to irritate people like you. Have fun. And be assured if it ever passed which is unlikely it'd be as toothless and swissed-cheesed as the last one so you can get one if you really wanted one.

have fun with the rest of the thread all.

[MooseNSquirrel]

Originally Posted by schneiderguy

There is no logical fallacy in my post.

Really?

You are saying its legal because of an after the fact argument.

aka

"No one goes there anymore, its too crowded."

[buckshot24]

Originally Posted by blankslate

^idiot post. You do that a lot.

Yeah, I think it parodied yours perfectly.

[J3S73R]

Put in gun control (control being the keyword).

1) Make it so you NEED to take a required class that shows the proper operation of different types of firearms etc. This will be your license.
2) Make it so you need to register your firearms, like a car except a one time thing. If you transfer the ownership you must document it and get it notarized etc.
3) Require a mental health test -- paid by the owner every 3-5 years, this qualifies and renews your "license".

Control, not ban. Keep them out of the hands of those who aren't supposed to have them... at least more so than before.

Keep in mind, those who get them illegally still probably will but it will make it more difficult.

[Genx87]

Originally Posted by J3S73R

Put in gun control (control being the keyword).

1) Make it so you NEED to take a required class that shows the proper operation of different types of firearms etc. This will be your license.
2) Make it so you need to register your firearms, like a car except a one time thing. If you transfer the ownership you must document it and get it notarized etc.
3) Require a mental health test -- paid by the owner every 3-5 years, this qualifies and renews your "license".

Control, not ban. Keep them out of the hands of those who aren't supposed to have them... at least more so than before.

Keep in mind, those who get them illegally still probably will but it will make it more difficult.

What is your view of requiring an ID to vote?

[xj0hnx]

Originally Posted by J3S73R

Put in gun control (control being the keyword).

1) Make it so you NEED to take a required class that shows the proper operation of different types of firearms etc. This will be your license.
2) Make it so you need to register your firearms, like a car except a one time thing. If you transfer the ownership you must document it and get it notarized etc.
3) Require a mental health test -- paid by the owner every 3-5 years, this qualifies and renews your "license".

Control, not ban. Keep them out of the hands of those who aren't supposed to have them... at least more so than before.

Keep in mind, those who get them illegally still probably will but it will make it more difficult.

No, it will not do anything to make it harder to get guns illegally, as a matter of fact, that will probably expand the black market, think cocaine. So it will be no harder to get guns illegally, and much, much harder for law abiding citizens to get them ...complete, and utter fail ...next!!!

[basslover1]

I just want to make sure I'm understanding this, but CT still has an "assault weapons" ban on the books, right? Since like 1993-4ish?

[highland145]

Originally Posted by Genx87

What is your view of requiring an ID to vote?

J3S73R

[xj0hnx]

Originally Posted by blankslate

Sane law-abiding people should be able to buy firearms (with some restrictions depending on what they want) but both camps in the gun control debate....

"Guns are only useful for killing"

"Omg they're going to grab my guns"


...are engaging in the same old debate instead of addressing a common issue amongst nearly all of the national attention grabbing Gun Massacres in a thoughtful manner.

Which is the access to firearms that these mentally unbalanced people had.

But oh well let's get back to the popcorn.

Why should sane, rational people have restrictions on what they can buy? Because you, or some other anti-gun nut job doesn't like what they want? Or think it's useful? That's bullshit.

[schneiderguy]

Originally Posted by basslover1

I just want to make sure I'm understanding this, but CT still has an "assault weapons" ban on the books, right? Since like 1993-4ish?

Yes they do.

[Farmer]

I hate to dig up this thread, but please watch this video:

http://y2u.be/Ooa98FHuaU0

[marvdmartian]

Originally Posted by Farmer

I hate to dig up this thread, but please watch this video:

http://y2u.be/Ooa98FHuaU0

Funny, how the major metropolitan areas, which, coincidentally, are usually the first to ban firearms (Washington DC, NYC, Chicago, etc), have the HIGHER rate of violent crimes, per capita. Maybe an unarmed populace DOES make it easier on the criminals, huh??