Forum Thread

The Tide May Finally Be Turning on Gun Control

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 61 1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Today the Supreme Court refused to hear a case challenging a Chicago suburb's law prohibiting semiautomatic high-capacity assault weapons and large clips. The case not only affects the Chicago suburb of Highland Park, but any state and locality that has passed gun restrictions in recent months. That means gun control laws in Maryland, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York will now all be able to stand.

    While we still have a long way to go when it comes to the out of control gun culture in this country, it is nice to see the Supreme Court finally recognizing that unfettered access to assault weapons and the mass shootings that come from them are getting out of control in this country. Now we need the Federal Government to step up and pass a federal assault weapons ban because the right wing states that border states who actually want to stop mass shootings refuse to do anything at all.

  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    What exactly is an Assault weapon? Excluding of course fully automatic weapons , which are already banned.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: What exactly is an Assault weapon? Excluding of course fully automatic weapons , which are already banned.

    The Supreme Court just allowed for states and local municipalities to define what an assault weapon is.

    If you want to go hunt then have at it, but you don't need a large capacity clip to shoot a deer in the woods. A large capacity clip can only be used to kill as many human beings as possible.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: What exactly is an Assault weapon? Excluding of course fully automatic weapons , which are already banned.

    The Supreme Court just allowed for states and local municipalities to define what an assault weapon is.

    If you want to go hunt then have at it, but you don't need a large capacity clip to shoot a deer in the woods. A large capacity clip can only be used to kill as many human beings as possible.

    Total nonsense; all the already bought assault weapons with the people who bought them before any ruling can be freely traded via all kind of channels, like family or friends or the black market as well the ex military black market. So how do you control the 350 millions plus of guns (including assault weapons) and loads of ammunition already in the hands of all kinds of people? The few people who get background checks are a total laugh; compared to who have had hoards of weapons for ages.

    The gun stores are doing now a roaring business because of the media fear creation and what Trump spews. So don't let me laugh out loud. No, any laws here are a total joke; only the lawyers and the gun manufacturers are counting their money. What a country!!

  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: What exactly is an Assault weapon? Excluding of course fully automatic weapons , which are already banned.

    The Supreme Court just allowed for states and local municipalities to define what an assault weapon is.

    If you want to go hunt then have at it, but you don't need a large capacity clip to shoot a deer in the woods. A large capacity clip can only be used to kill as many human beings as possible.

    What is defined as a large capacity mag. 9 rounds, 10,20, 30 rounds, unless the shooter is a spray and pray shooter, there is evidence that a random shooter is less dangerous than a proficient one, a shotgun is more lethal in the hands of the less than proficient shooter than a long gun, mainly because of the larger shot pattern., shotguns come in sizes .410, 10 , 12 ,14 and 20 gauge, they range in shot capacity from single shot barrel, double barrel and pump, with mag. sizes from 3,5, 7, plus one in the chamber, should these also be considered banned because I have the same shotgun now that I once carried in the jungle as an assault weapon , A Remington 12 gauge pump shotgun.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: What exactly is an Assault weapon? Excluding of course fully automatic weapons , which are already banned.

    The Supreme Court just allowed for states and local municipalities to define what an assault weapon is.

    If you want to go hunt then have at it, but you don't need a large capacity clip to shoot a deer in the woods. A large capacity clip can only be used to kill as many human beings as possible.

    What is defined as a large capacity mag. 9 rounds, 10,20, 30 rounds, unless the shooter is a spray and pray shooter, there is evidence that a random shooter is less dangerous than a proficient one, a shotgun is more lethal in the hands of the less than proficient shooter than a long gun, mainly because of the larger shot pattern., shotguns come in sizes .410, 10 , 12 ,14 and 20 gauge, they range in shot capacity from single shot barrel, double barrel and pump, with mag. sizes from 3,5, 7, plus one in the chamber, should these also be considered banned because I have the same shotgun now that I once carried in the jungle as an assault weapon , A Remington 12 gauge pump shotgun.
    Wow; I'll be nice to you from now on!! I'll hide in my bomb shelter till I die.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: What is defined as a large capacity mag...
    Once again...the Supreme Court is allowing the states to define what a large capacity magazine is.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: What is defined as a large capacity mag...
    Once again...the Supreme Court is allowing the states to define what a large capacity magazine is.
    This will only generate more appeals as the local authorities will overreach in their interpretation of this non-decision by the Court, they did however allow the carrying of side arms as a means of self-defense , both concealed and open carry,and as a Second Amendment Right,
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: This will only generate more appeals as the local authorities will overreach in their interpretation of this non-decision by the Court, they did however allow the carrying of side arms as a means of self-defense , both concealed and open carry,and as a Second Amendment Right,

    The Supreme Court is the final arbiter in the land. If they allow a lower court ruling to stand then that's the final word.

    This will not change the law for states who don't want more gun control, but it does mean the states who have passed gun control laws get to keep them and any other state that wants to pass similar laws now have the green light to do so.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:So how do you control the 350 millions plus of guns (including assault weapons) and loads of ammunition already in the hands of all kinds of people?

    Pass a law banning the making of any gun that isn't a smart gun and any bullet that isn't a smart bullet. Then create an exchange program where gun nuts can trade in their old bullets for the new smart bullets.

    Many will resist, but the problem will eventually take care of itself because they will eventually run out of their old bullets.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote:So how do you control the 350 millions plus of guns (including assault weapons) and loads of ammunition already in the hands of all kinds of people?

    Pass a law banning the making of any gun that isn't a smart gun and any bullet that isn't a smart bullet. Then create an exchange program where gun nuts can trade in their old bullets for the new smart bullets.

    Many will resist, but the problem will eventually take care of itself because they will eventually run out of their old bullets.

    jaredsxtn, People will never run out of bullets. They hardly ever shoot but keep on buying. The 350000000 guns and 100's of millions of bullets out there will last forever. Remember this, when they talk about bullet shortages, that is just bullets for sale. There are hundreds of millions of bullets. Update Billions of bullets.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    U.S. gun, rifle and ammunition sales to civilians were $4.3 billion in 2011, with bullets amounting to about a third of the total, the National
    Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-ammunition-idUSBRE90J02K20130120#vmwBQ27tm0i4UXrh.99
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: This will only generate more appeals as the local authorities will overreach in their interpretation of this non-decision by the Court, they did however allow the carrying of side arms as a means of self-defense , both concealed and open carry,and as a Second Amendment Right,

    The Supreme Court is the final arbiter in the land. If they allow a lower court ruling to stand then that's the final word.

    This will not change the law for states who don't want more gun control, but it does mean the states who have passed gun control laws get to keep them and any other state that wants to pass similar laws now have the green light to do so.

    here in Pa. we have certain laws concerning guns, we also have 67 counties who now feel empowered to enact certain ordinances that will can either strengthen or weaken the state law, and then within these individuals counties there are numerous towns, bouroughs, and cities, all will and can and have enacted other ordinances that are at odds with the counties , this is what happens when you don't have a clear and decisive ruling, considering it is the final word on the subject or at least until another majority congress gets elected and holds opposing views. I should mention that Pa. is a huge hunting state.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote:So how do you control the 350 millions plus of guns (including assault weapons) and loads of ammunition already in the hands of all kinds of people?

    Pass a law banning the making of any gun that isn't a smart gun and any bullet that isn't a smart bullet. Then create an exchange program where gun nuts can trade in their old bullets for the new smart bullets.

    Many will resist, but the problem will eventually take care of itself because they will eventually run out of their old bullets.

    jaredsxtn, People will never run out of bullets. They hardly ever shoot but keep on buying. The 350000000 guns and 100's of millions of bullets out there will last forever. Remember this, when they talk about bullet shortages, that is just bullets for sale. There are hundreds of millions of bullets. Update Billions of bullets.
    Yes completely agree; what about all the ammunition the Pentagon "lost" in all their wars; it is available on all kinds of markets worldwide; just order on line. Indeed 80% of people who have guns and ammunition, seldom use it, because it is solely bought for their "protection" at home etc. Why would they want to trade in their guns and ammunition at an extra cost? As another remark "banning assault weapons" or large magazines is nonsense; you need just one bullet to kill someone; unless you want to kill a whole bunch, which does not happen too often; so you could use a "flintlock" if you wish. If you look at all the killings lately, then the cops score the highest in the number of rounds to kill someone; I guess they are very insecure about their skills and therefore want loads of ammunition; they won't trade these for something "smart" that takes the fun away.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote:So how do you control the 350 millions plus of guns (including assault weapons) and loads of ammunition already in the hands of all kinds of people?

    Pass a law banning the making of any gun that isn't a smart gun and any bullet that isn't a smart bullet. Then create an exchange program where gun nuts can trade in their old bullets for the new smart bullets.

    Many will resist, but the problem will eventually take care of itself because they will eventually run out of their old bullets.

    jaredsxtn, People will never run out of bullets. They hardly ever shoot but keep on buying. The 350000000 guns and 100's of millions of bullets out there will last forever. Remember this, when they talk about bullet shortages, that is just bullets for sale. There are hundreds of millions of bullets. Update Billions of bullets.
    Yes completely agree; what about all the ammunition the Pentagon "lost" in all their wars; it is available on all kinds of markets worldwide; just order on line. Indeed 80% of people who have guns and ammunition, seldom use it, because it is solely bought for their "protection" at home etc. Why would they want to trade in their guns and ammunition at an extra cost? As another remark "banning assault weapons" or large magazines is nonsense; you need just one bullet to kill someone; unless you want to kill a whole bunch, which does not happen too often; so you could use a "flintlock" if you wish. If you look at all the killings lately, then the cops score the highest in the number of rounds to kill someone; I guess they are very insecure about their skills and therefore want loads of ammunition; they won't trade these for something "smart" that takes the fun away.
    Dutch, Gun control has lost its focus. It has turned into simply not wanting people to have guns. People are obsessed with taking guns and lost sight of the objective to stop mass killings. Obama recognizes that gun control won't stop mass killings because now he says things like all the killings can't be stopped and we can reduce the odds. Theoretically removing all the guns will stop mass killings by guns. Realistically removing all the guns is impossible. As it becomes clear that none of the gun control groups will settle for reasonable gun laws and they want confiscation then the real problems will start. Compounding the problem is using other means of death and destruction. Explosives and bombs. So now are pipes and explosives going to be outlawed. Regardless of how evil guns are perceived focusing resources on an impossible problem is insane. A buyback program will cost $140,000,000,000 that is 140 billion dollars. To disable 350 million guns will cost at least 70 billion dollars. Storing 350,000,000 guns if they were just dumped and bull dozed into an 8 foot high pile would cover 180 acres. The guns would have to be in a building to prevent rainwater ground contamination or a landfill . A landfill would cost 25 million dollars. Transporting the guns would cost 750 million dollars. The total cost for collecting 350 million guns is a quarter trillion dollars, 250 billion dollars. Reasonable gun control laws are useless for stopping mass killings. Removing all guns is impossible. It will cost a quarter trillion dollars . So on what earthly purpose is gun control ?