Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
If we banned semi automatic guns and not fully automatic guns too, I'd imagine they'd be a great replacement option for a mass shooting or no?
Again, I'd like both banned first and foremost.
Again, I'd like both banned first and foremost.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
If it were up to me, they'd both be banned.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
You have no idea how to purchase an automatic rifle, do you?
You should try to do a little research here before you call for banning things. Just a thought.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
You can buy one at age 18. There is no need to have an AR. They do more harm than good. I've done all the research I need to know I'm against owning one.
Baby steps... but still, good news from the NYT, I'll add a link shortly
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a California law that imposes a 10-day waiting period on firearms purchases.
As is their custom, the justices gave no reasons for deciding not to hear the case. The court has turned away many Second Amendment cases in recent years, to the frustration of gun-rights groups and some conservative justices.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed an impassioned 14-page dissent in the case, Silvester v. Becerra, No. 17-342. “As evidenced by our continued inaction in this area,” he wrote, “the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”
In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep guns at home for self-defense.
Since then, the court has said little about what other laws may violate the Second Amendment. In the lower courts, few challenges to gun control laws since the Heller decision have succeeded.
The California law at issue in the new case was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, which accepted the state’s arguments that the waiting period was justified by the need to conduct background checks and the desirability of a “cooling off” period for gun buyers inclined to commit immediate violence.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a California law that imposes a 10-day waiting period on firearms purchases.
As is their custom, the justices gave no reasons for deciding not to hear the case. The court has turned away many Second Amendment cases in recent years, to the frustration of gun-rights groups and some conservative justices.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed an impassioned 14-page dissent in the case, Silvester v. Becerra, No. 17-342. “As evidenced by our continued inaction in this area,” he wrote, “the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”
In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep guns at home for self-defense.
Since then, the court has said little about what other laws may violate the Second Amendment. In the lower courts, few challenges to gun control laws since the Heller decision have succeeded.
The California law at issue in the new case was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, which accepted the state’s arguments that the waiting period was justified by the need to conduct background checks and the desirability of a “cooling off” period for gun buyers inclined to commit immediate violence.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
At least three too many...
Look, like I said before, I'm all for banning both semi and fully automatic rifles. Yeah, I said I'd ban automatics first if I had to choose and I realize I should have said semis. That said, I can not think of a reason anyone should own one - both semi or fully auto. I can think of plenty of why the shouldn't though.
I own guns and have my whole life, but evidently, there needs to be some sort of change. I'd be happy to give up my guns if the government asked and I just put in for four hunts. Yeah, it sucks I think this way for the many responsible AR gun owners. I just value life and realize there needs to be changes or we're going to keep repeating mass shootings in the US. I also understand and value opposing opinions.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Why do you make **** up even when there is an argument to be made? Pulling **** out of your *** doesn't help your case.
"Sixty-six percent of Americans want stricter gun control laws — the highest level recorded by Quinnipiac University since it started polling the issue after Sandy Hook."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/amp/poll-support-gun-control-hits-record-high-n849686
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Are there half a million vets who are willing to give up their current careers or retirement to work as school security guards?
Miggs
Well-Known Member
Just read this article. I found it to be fairly balanced and it pointed out some of the things states can do to hopefully reduce the number of mass shootings or fatal shootings in general.
https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/
Sounds like getting rid of this loophole makes the most sense, at least as a starting point.
https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/
Sounds like getting rid of this loophole makes the most sense, at least as a starting point.