If Camrl to gets elected she has stated she will, by executive order institute a mandatory buyback of assualt rifles.
Why do you lefties support this? Serious questionWhen looking to purchase a gun you should always find a gun of the proper caliber, size and weight that when you fire the gun you maintain total and complete control of that gun, trigger pull after trigger pull……..AKA gun control
2024 = Trump270+
And stop being a dolt Lost. An XO does not supersede the constitution so it aint happening and of course you provide no link.
you cannot figure out it is another way of saying
kuntmala
kamaliar
scamala
First you ask about gun control in the subject. But them you ramble about the possible mandatory buyback of assault rifles. Two different things.
First, gun control is not about taking guns away from people. It's about doing our best to make sure they are not in the hands of the wrong people and there are protective measures. No one on either side wants school shootings, little kids finding guns and accidently shooting someone, and other uneccessary shootings of innocent people. I have no issue with someone who is using a gun properly for hunting or having it to protect themselves.
As for the buyback on assault rifles, that's because you don't need an assault rifle to hunt or protect yourself. There are other gun types for this need. An assault rifle is perfect for a mass shooting though. Get a clue.
There is no physical distinction between a rifle and an "assault rifle". It's a propaganda term.
.
Semi-automatic IS useful in self-defense. The ability to fire more than once quickly is vital since there is a strong likelihood of not even hitting your attacker on the first shot, so timely additional shots are vital.
.
Large magazines are also vital since you may have more than one attacker and you may have difficulty hitting them and they may not stop after being hit with the first shot.
.
Rifles are vital in self defense because they are easier to aim, which of course is both a defense benefit and hitting the target is better for the safety of others nearby than missed shots.
.
Having just listed ALL the significant properties of "assault rifles" you can see there is no meaningful difference between a rifle and an "assault rifle" and the above features are vitally important in a defense role.
Show me all the times someone legitimately used and needed a semi automatic for self defense. In most cases they were used at close range. Unless they mentally changed in learning how to shot straight, they didn’t need them. Your argument is the typical one used, but it’s baseless. Guess how many were used in mass shootings. More than 25% of the time. Because you know what, they are great for taking out multiple people in a short time.
NOT every rifle is a semi-automatic. The word "rifle" refers to a long gun with a rifled bore. That's IT. And a basic rifle is BOLT ACTION and can't be used even in semi-automatic form.
Fester knows NOTHING about weapons and is a complete IDIOT.
Define "legitimately." If it is just a test of your opinion, then it's a fool's errand. If it is based on lack of convictions for murder, then Kyle Rittenhouse usage is a "legitimate" example of use of an AR-15 to defend himself, as he was found "not guilty" and is therefore and forever presumed innocent as a matter of law.
You seem to not comprehend my point. Not being found guilty simply means the person using it likely was doing so in self defense. On average, there are 5 of these per year. And, TBH, if this was the only way they were used we would not be having this debate as I wouldn't mind it as much. What I am saying is did they really need it vs. another gun type. Kyle Rittenhouse is the perfect example. He used it from up close. Unless he is untrained and/or incompent, he did not need an AR-15. This is my point. If the rationale is one's right to protect themselves, the question to answer is not if they used it to protect themselves or not. The question is did they need it or were other gun types that are not perfect for mass shootings good enough for their protection needs. My arguement stands that there are enough other gun types that anyone with proper training and a decent level of compentency can use them to meet their needs.
In your subject line you say “2 questions” and you label both “first” failed grade school arithmetic I see.
Also neither in the form of a question ….grade school dropout I see.
If you think an AR style gun/rifle sold in gun stores throughout the US is and assault rifle/weapon you are wrong.
By most definitions an assault rifle/weapon is one that has a selector switch that the shooter can select either semi-automatic or full automatic ( some a third position for three round burst).
Now go look up the difference between semi-automatic and full automatic.
Full automatic weapons of any type are illegal to sell or to be used by civilians.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle
according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, an assault rifle is a selective-fire weapon that can fire both semi-automatic and fully automatic rounds. Selective fire means the shooter can choose between the two modes.
In semi-automatic mode, the gun fires once for each trigger pull. In fully automatic mode, the gun continues to fire until the trigger is released. Some assault rifles also have a three-shot-burst mode.
The U.S. Army defines an assault rifle as a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate-power cartridge. Assault rifles are shoulder-fired, rapid-fire, magazine-fed weapons that were first mass-produced during World War II. The German StG 44 was the first assault rifle to see widespread use.
However, the term "assault weapon" is sometimes used to describe a wide range of firearms used by civilians. Some say that the term "assault weapon" is used to mischaracterize semi-automatic firearms, such as the AR-15, which only fire one round per trigger pull. Others say that assault weapons are high-powered semi-automatic firearms that can fire rounds with up to four times the muzzle velocity of a handgun. These rounds can cause more damage to the human body, and semi-automatic weapons can load and fire faster than manually operated firearms. When combined with high-capacity magazines, they allow the shooter to fire more rounds quickly without reloading.
As for hunting with an AR style riffle.
http://www.michiganoutofdoors.com/do-you-need-an-ar-15-to-hunt-deer/
http://www.northamericanwhitetail.com/editorial/ar-style-rifles-deer-hunting/370094#replay
http://www.huntstand.com/fieldnotes/choosing-an-ar-15-for-deer-hunting/
I support some restrictions but not a ban. Owners should have had Military training in one of the service branches on how to properly use a high-powered weapon like this, or else condition the sale of the assault rifles on completion of a training and safety course at a government-licensed gun range.
IMO, all gun ownership should involve training and passing a test. You wouldn’t give a driver’s license to someone who can’t pass a written and driving test. Why give a gun to someone who cannot do the same? Now some states already do this, but many do not. I don’t quite understand why everyone outside of the gun companies who want to sell more guns wouldn’t want this as a prerequisite to getting a gun license.
You need to alter the Constitution. You don't need "training" to exercise your 1rst amendment right to free speech. As the SCOTUS similarly concluded, the right to bear arms is not a secondary right and therefore there is no "test" needed to exercise it. Whether you think this specific line of inquiry is wrong, be advised that it was explicitly raised in the SCOUTS decision. It's is now the law of the land. If you are a member of "the people" you have a right to bear arms. The court ruled that denial of such a right must be based on history and tradition of such restrictions and the time period for such history is circa the time of the adoption of the bill of rights. Not the 20th century.
Lester really hit the nail on the head in the post above.
The “need” argument discussed further upthread gets negated because it doesn’t pass constitutional scrutiny.
Another problem with the government imposing training requirements is that it becomes a sort of poll tax that ends up making only the wealthy and elite to have access to firearms. Some states have used increasing ownership costs on gun owners by trying to impose exorbitant taxes on ammunition. This also prices out the poor and lower middle class, while at the same time creating the conditions for a black market for ammunition.
So basically you don't care if a pyschotic imbecile has guns because it is his constitutional right? Maybe you should read the contitution, or at least the 2nd Amendment if you are going to site it. Here's a little something:
"Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding 'the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill' or restrictions on 'the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons'."
You notice that felons and mentally ill don't get this right? How do you think we are supposed to figure out who these people are? You also noticed that it does not include dangerous and unusual weapons? Well, what are these types of weapons? This part is somewhat subjective and left for debate. You can debate and pass laws to attemtp to calrify this piece. So, an AR-15 can or cannot be included. This is open for debate.
But okay, you are also focused on the training part. Well guess what, nothing in the words "right to bear arms" says you cannot require proper training to get a gun license. In fact, as I previously stated, some states already do require it. Not needing training is just your opinion. It is not written law. You have chose to believe it is implied and therefore it is your constitutional right. Your only right is the right to bear arms. States have the authority to create a process to protect everyone, which is the gun control debate. Some, like you, believe that any control is taking away your constitutional right. Some, like me, do not believe this is the case. I believe that if a process is created that allows anyone who meets said criteria to get a gun, than that right is still being upheld. I do not believe having protections is wrong because of the right to bear arms.
The 9th Circuit just blocked the California law that allowed only one gun purchase every 30 days. There are never ending appeals on this stuff but as of today Californians can buy as many guns as they want.
.
The court nullified the law ruling that the state was unlikely to win on appeal since the law is likely unconstitutional.
Ain’t that right… Cletus😂😂
You lefties believe that if AR15s went away the US would be a safer place?