Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think you have any idea what "assault weapons" are.
True. I have no reason to know.
Quote:
Contrary to popular beliefs there are quite a few differences and caveats that don't prevent but greatly restrict civilian ownership of real "assault weapons." Most things that people make people think perfectly legal rifles and pistols are "assault weapons" do serve a purpose but don't make a firearm more or less dangerous themselves, i.e. folding/telescopic stocks, pistol grips, flash hider/muzzle brakes, large-capacity magazines, etc. Sort of like optioning out a sports car- do you want these rims or those rims, these tires or those tires, more powerful engine or more economical engine, etc. (incidentally, cars are far more dangerous, and far more people own cars.)
Thank you for clarifying.
Quote:
Some states have waiting periods, but really, there isn't much need for a "waiting period" when the background check (to be sure you aren't a felon) only takes about 15 minutes. In addition, the form used when purchasing a modern firearm can be used as a legal document in a court of law, there are places where you do have to swear that you aren't a felon, are mentally competent, etc. if I remember correctly (I'll be filling one out next week.)
The waiting period is like with marriage...to be sure you are doing it for the right reasons. Not to see if your background is clean. I could get mad and go buy a gun and kill someone in my rage. Gimme a few days and I have time to cool down.
Quote:
Lastly, registration is an issue because it can be used as a data mine. Were anyone ever tempted to try and seize all firearms "for our own good", they would have a list of who owns what, where they are, exactly WHO they are, and they would not be nice about seizing them- imagine several armed police showing up to seize your car (because it's registered, right?) if someone said that cars were bad and we shouldn't have them. The idea of that much information being available in one place when the government isn't very good at keeping things secure is also unsettling- things like social security numbers, drivers' license numbers, known addresses, etc. would probably be used in a registry like that and it could be used for great harm if in the wrong hands.
I understand what you're saying, but that is a bit tinfoil hat, no offense.
Since another poster has taken care of explaining the waiting periods and registration, I wanted to expand on this one.
Assault weapons are full auto, military weapons. Yes, they are out there. The owners have gone through EXTENSIVE background checks and paid a hefty price for the weapon. A 1986 M16 at a recent gun show had a price of $16,000 on it. There are even a few GE mini-guns in the hands of civilians but they start at $250,000. That's right - a quarter of a million for a gun.
The guns you call assault weapons are semi-auto versions of the military weapon. But it's odd that my Beretta 92 is never lumped into this group even though is it the standard issue sidearm for the military. In fact mine is identical to the ones issues during the late 80's.
Basically you want to eliminate a class of guns based entirely on features but not on performance. Let's take these 2 guns for example. The first is a Ruger 10/22. It's been around for decades and one of the best selling rifles in the entire world.
Now this gun. It's evil, it's black and it's a Ruger 10/22. Yes, the same gun in a different format. During the 80's assault weapon ban, the gun on top was legal wile the gun below was illegal. It made absolutely no sense.
Holy crap! That price is quite high! I don't understand why one would be disallowed over the other, seems rather arbitrary.
Haha, I'm actually learning something on C-D today.
Do you believe criminals or would-be criminals should also have that right? I don't.
This is a slightly ludicrous argument considering that criminals always have done and always will do whatever they want. A ban on certain firearms would do nothing to harm criminals and would do a lot to limit legal ownership.
In addition gun bans only make everything related to guns more expensive, but that doesn't stop people from stealing firearms, now does it? Anyways, I could be a jerk and start calling names and stuff, but education is better.
Besides, 90% of criminals do not own and will never see an "assault weapon" in their lifetimes. I guess I should fill you in on how that works as well. Another poster mentioned that yes, you can own a military-style "assault weapon" in this country, and they are indeed strictly monitored and VERY expensive. Firearms that are shorter than a certain length, fire in a fully-automatic mode, certain accessories such as suppressors, and even certain parts of the guns themselves that fall into this category (Class 3/NFA firearms) require a stringent background check, paperwork detailing residence and other information must be sent off to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and tax stamps must be paid for every transfer. In addition, much of these things are PROHIBITIVELY expensive, as in, it is very costly (the cheapest one of these firearms sells for is usually in excess of $2500-3500 and can go all the way up past a hundred thousand dollars as one poster pointed out) to acquire these things, and people who actually have that kind of money and people who sell those items are few and far between.
Remember how I mentioned that there isn't really a need to have a waiting period for REGULAR firearms, since the background check only takes 15 minutes? Well, for "assault weapons" like I have described, there is indeed a waiting period. All purchases of this type have to be approved by an ATF desk jockey, and the MINIMUM waiting period for approval is 8 weeks. Since all the ATF desk jockeys are currently flooded with paperwork due to a few of their number dying off (there's less than one hundred of these special inspectors in the US), the waiting period is currently up to roughly TWELVE WEEKS, and that's not even for machine guns or short-barreled rifles/destructive devices. No, it's not even for a firearm. The 12-week waiting period is on suppressors alone, which can be owned legally but must be purchased from very special gun dealers, registered, approved, taxed, and THEN you can claim ownership.
Keep in mind that this occurs AFTER you have already paid for whatever it is you are trying to buy-- and there is still no guarantee that you would get it in time for something devious, and there isn't even a guarantee that you would be approved at all.
And I most certainly DO NOT wear a tinfoil hat. far from. I'm actually an EMT who happens to be interested in things that go boom, and I think I know a fair bit more about how this stuff works than most posters on C-D.
Maybe I should have said would-be violent criminal. If someone already has crimes under their belt like robbery or dealing drugs, do I think they should be allowed to have a semi-automatic weapon?
They would fail the background check if they were convicted of any crime you listed above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
Or if someone comes in that has a tear drop tattoo by his eye and acting like a thug, regardless of race, we should be able to run a background check to see if he has a criminal history. Why is that objectionable?
Not objectionable and that is already in place in every single state in the US with some minor exceptions. I don't have to fill out ATF form 4473 in the state of MS because I have already passed a more thorough background check and have a MS Concealed Carry Permit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
Holy crap! That price is quite high! I don't understand why one would be disallowed over the other, seems rather arbitrary.
Because the people who make the laws don't know the difference either. This is one of the best examples:
JordanJP,
You also forgot the signature from your local official. You can jump through all of the federal hoops and your local sheriff can refuse to sign the paperwork. I'm looking at getting a suppressor for my rifle but I'm not sure my local officials will sign-off based on discussion in the gun forums.
Maybe I should have said would-be violent criminal. If someone already has crimes under their belt like robbery or dealing drugs, do I think they should be allowed to have a semi-automatic weapon? Heck no. Or if someone comes in that has a tear drop tattoo by his eye and acting like a thug, regardless of race, we should be able to run a background check to see if he has a criminal history. Why is that objectionable?
I am pro second amendment but I don't think anyone and everyone should have free access to all types of guns.
under the federalist papers, I think everyone not in jail should have access to all types of firearms available to the infantry soldier.
if you dont want criminals to have firearms, then keep them in jail.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,090,420 times
Reputation: 3937
Gun owners, could you vote for Romney?
No way would I vote for Romney.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That price is quite high! I don't understand why one would be disallowed over the other, seems rather arbitrary.
