I’d love to see Congress take the Gun Ban bill to the floor for a vote
- Thread starter DvlDog4WVU
- Start date
This is an electoral college thing in their mind. Those numbers, in my guess, do not reflect how this issue would impact ‘20, or vulnerable districts in ‘18 for Republicans. Imo, I think this issue helps maintain the EC map for Trump in ‘20, if Dems push the issue. The only thing that would overtake it would be an coalition in the cities and amongst youth more motivated than Obama’s first run.....Oprah?
Point is....it’s better for the Dems to work in conjunction to get something done, so this issue can’t be used against them. Maybe the current sentiment doesn’t fade, and it’s the issue that changes the game? Maybe. But midterms aren’t the time to float that balloon....as Dog said....if it fails, it’s going to get real.
This is my question, why won't the NRA support a ban the sale of semi-automatic rifles and the sale of 223 rounds to people under 21?
Because the NRA wants background checks to carry all of the load here.
I work in an industry that background checks every employee they hire and that doesn't stop fraud or any other employee wrongdoings. All it does is determine who broke the law in the past. You need a layered approach that includes background checks.
Because of that damned constitution.
Now.... if you want to strip all rights away from 18 year olds, then let's talk.
Otherwise.... quit pissing in the wind and start focusing on solutions that will have a better chance of happening and working.
Because of that damned constitution.
Now.... if you want to strip all rights away from 18 year olds, then let's talk.
Otherwise.... quit pissing in the wind and start focusing on solutions that will have a better chance of happening and working.
are you stupid? The 2nd amendment is silent on age. And Richard, I never once said anything about prohibiting somebody under 21 from buying a handgun, hunting rifle, or even a shotgun. But you just fall back to some NRA distributed talking point because you can't think for yourself. Here is a quote from a gun rights advocate; Michael Connelly, executive director of the U.S. Justice Foundation, a public interest law firm that supports gun-rights advocates, said, “I think an effort to ban people between 18 and 21 from purchasing AR-15s would be vulnerable to a Second Amendment challenge, particularly in light of the current makeup of the Supreme Court."
He didn't say that you couldn't raise the age. He just said it would be vulnerable to challenge. We all know that it would challenged.......
Assault weapons are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.Because of that damned constitution.
Now.... if you want to strip all rights away from 18 year olds, then let's talk.
Otherwise.... quit pissing in the wind and start focusing on solutions that will have a better chance of happening and working.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106
Because that’s an absurd notion. As already pointed out, all AR platforms come in multiple calibers. I prefer the 7.62mm variant also known as .308 which is a common NATO round as well. The .223 is basically the equivalent of 5.56mm. And semi-auto rifles are not just ARs, semi-auto encompasses many hunting rifles as well.
All this aside, 90% of gun deaths are pistols. Which is exactly where the mass shootings go when the ARs are banned. You guys aren’t proposing solutions to a problem. You’re proposing feel good measures.
No doubt, which is why I have mixed feelings about this. There isn't a solution out there that really addresses how to keep guys like Cruz or Kelley from killing people.
My 30.06 is a semi automatic, Clip only holds 5 though. You will probably have to go deeper if you want semiautos band for under 21. Not just normal rifles.
Agreed. It’s never going to stop no matter what we do short of getting rid of all guns. This is something we’re going to have to accept as a society. Harden the schools and lock them down. But then, the senseless killing will be to some other soft target like a mall or a McDonalds.
"In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment"
Jesus H Christ.... trying to debate some of you on this subject is like telling my dog to stop licking his pecker.
I don't fall back to talking points, I fall back on facts and logic. And your quote from Michael Connelly proves my point.
Thank you Dog. Heller settled the matter, along with McDonald v. Chicago. The definition of "Assault Weapon" is potentially so broad there is no way to narrowly define it while not going against what is now considered Constitutional law.
Again... people would rather just piss in the wind. Trying to ban something that 1) Attributes to a small fraction of overall gun murder and 2) Would eventually fall to SCOTUS review is a complete waste of time and effort. Let's instead focus on what WOULD work and WOULD pass.
Haven't we had an assault weapons ban before? If so, someone must have ruled it Constitutional.
If that's what I think it is, I listened to it last night. He talked in circles. Was what this guy saying that since it hadn't been taken up by SCOTUS that it's fair game?
The one that was proven to have no negligble impact? For 10 years? Yep. The very same one. I’m not sure it was challenged in the early 90s when it was enacted. Might be wrong though. Regardless, we had one for 10 years and it didn’t work, why go back to it?
From the looks of things, looks like public concern momentum will swing it toward some sort of AWB.
It will never pass and it would fail in front of the current members of the court.
Dems are bringing it up because they no it has no chance to pass...but they can still look like feel good heroes.
So Dems want the guns.....but not really? They just want to look like they want the guns? Or they just want to look like heroes?
I think many Dems would be fine with taking the guns.....I don’t think they were after it to begin with, but have no problem with that being the end result.
One thing many people forget.....these are representatives, they should honor what their constituents desire.
They want to look like they want top ban guns knowing full well it won't pass...they can then say they tried...and feel good about it.
LOL! It was challenged at least twice; once from Florida and once from Maryland. Upheld both times
Why can't you guys be honest? I love guns. I own plenty of them, but I can be honest about the issue.
No one can honestly say whether or not the assault weapons ban was effective or not. Here is a graph showing the mass murders prior to, during and after the ban.
I don't think it ever went to SCOTUSLOL! It was challenged at least twice; once from Florida and once from Maryland. Upheld both times
Why can't you guys be honest? I love guns. I own plenty of them, but I can be honest about the issue.
No one can honestly say whether or not the assault weapons ban was effective or not. Here is a graph showing the mass murders prior to, during and after the ban.
LOL...you sound like Trump...just needed you to say yuge or bigly in there somewhere.
They need to ban certain people from carrying a gun. I would be fearful of many on this board that "carry".
Admittedly I don't know anything about the 308 round. I have seen a 9mm version. Seems the 9 would start getting a tad heavy (??) when loaded and pretty ineffective due to the round. I actually have considered buying the S&W M&P 15 for about a year now. Really cheap at gun shows. The 22LR version is REALLY cheap. I would buy the 223 version though simply because I would only use the gun to defend my home if it ever came to that and that is an effective round for that purpose.
Hey I grew up in WV where it seemed every little kid in my town had a 410 shotgun and a 22 rifle for hunting. Just like everywhere else, these same kids brought their bigger hunting guns to school in the back of their trucks. Nobody shot up the schools. I completely understand that. This is my opinion; the AR style guns with the 223 round is a weapon used to terrorize by idiots wanting to terrorize. The platform is scary and therefore adds to the terror. The round is more lethal than your 9mm or maybe even a 40. Let's not forget the VT killed 31 with a 9mm and a 22 semi-automatic pistol. Those two worked well.
And to your point, there is no solution to the problem until we force parents to socialize their kids like puppies, quit "glorifying" the shooters, somehow be willing to trample on somebody's civil right because they might be crazy. And none of that might work anyway. Most everyone of these shooters had some sort if mental issue. However, look at the Las Vegas shooter, he likely wouldn't have been deemed incompetent by a court. Nobody expected him to kill over 50.
So yeah if raising the age to purchase to 21, imposing a realistic waiting period, and mandating background checks is a feel good measure (which I think age and waiting periods are for the most part), I still support it. We can't continue to do nothing here. Right? If I decide to buy that M&P 15 today, there is no reason in the world why I can't wait a week to pick it up. I just passed the background check. And I am well over 21 with a long history of responsible gun ownership. I don't believe that the ideas floated by Trump last week trampled on anyone's ownership rights. They would only serve as a potential impediment to that loony-tune going off on the public.
I agree with what you are saying .....i find it funny that people say get rid of the means of assault but don't correct the problem ...
What were their jobs in your sight? Whatever they did, they would lose in appeal,imp.
They were told he was mentally ill. They never really visited him and took it seriously. There will always be people slip through the cracks.