Here's an example of an on-topic response to the OP- I will refuse to support, under any circumstance, a bill that restricts weapons based on a function of their action being semi-automatic. or I will refuse to support any bill that restricts any firearm to a maximum capacity of less than 10 rounds. I reiterate, these are examples. As to the point of the OP- The foundation of 'reasonable gun control' in America ostencibly rests upon the claim 'no one is coming for your guns'... No evidence thus far that theres any reason to believe that. If proponents of gun control have no minimum standard of gun rights, they will eventually allow firearms to be banned entirely. If thats the case, as it appears to be, anyone who values any gun rights at all is well advised to oppose all further restrictions to gun rights.
Self defense. if they need a gun, I need the same gun. I personally believe that police officers should only be armed with guns that an ordinary civilian can own.
They do not have an -honest- answer, because they seek to lay as many restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms as they can. As such, no level of restriction is "enough".
No I don't. The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. See the 2nd Amendment.
I acknowledge that it's the law, but I do believe the law to be unconstitutional. I don't feel full auto weapons are evil killing machines, and I think as long as the military has the right to use them, so should citizens.
No. Your turn: Where do you draw the line? Suppose you're asked to support a gun control bill, and it includes all the laws you think are reasonable and sensible. But it goes farther than that. How far is too far? Which policies, if included, will cause you to say, 'I can't support this'?
What is the practical use and justification that allows a civilian to get off 41 rounds in 30 seconds?
The same practical use and justification that allows a civilian to go 0-60 in 2.8 seconds and 150mph in a production car. There is no where in the US where you can travel that fast legally on public roadways. There is no practical use nor justification for any civilian to own a Dodge Hellcat, Corvette, Mustang, etc. You don't need 500hp to go to the grocery store. There are thousands of production vehicles in the US that can literally outrun the police cars. Why is a civilian allowed to own a vehicle that can outrun law enforcement vehicles? The difference is that the Federal Government could legally just openly ban any vehicle with more than 200hp or something if they wanted to. Owning a vehicle is not a Constitutional Right. Owning a firearm is. Point is, the "justification" is in the US Constitution and the more generalized justification is simply because I want one. Some folks enjoy running 1/4 miles in less than 10 seconds in super cars, some people enjoy going to the range and firing off 41 rounds in 30 seconds. It is not the role of citizens to justify to their government why they have things.
If those cars became a public safety hazard they would ban them. High capacity weapons are obviously a public safety hazard. All rights are limited in the name of protecting the public. It's not all about you.
Because any threat they face is the exact same threat that citizens face. If it wasn't, police wouldn't need a gun either.
This is the crux of the whole argument. You will not get an answer, because it exposes them. It's the same as the "fair share" tax argument. They will never put a number on it. Like wise with reasonable gun laws. They will talk about "A good start would be......" They WILL NOT give you a limit. There is none.
Cars are a public safety hazard. Speeding and distracted driving are the leading causes of vehicle related fatalities in the US, fatalities which GREATLY outnumber firearm related fatalities. As a matter of fact while commuting home from work this evening someone went screaming past me in a Subaru WRX, the car of choice around here for the young people to purchase and zip around town. That is a dangerous act and a dangerous vehicle, there is no reason whatsoever why somebody needs a turbo charged car. None, and you are unable to justify to me or anyone else why such a thing should be legal because there is no justification and you know that. Irresponsible people operating vehicles such as that are incredibly dangerous and kill way more people annually than AR15s. That is a statistical fact. In the name of protecting the public, based on pure statistical irrefutable data, do you believe we should ban sports cars that factually cause more injuries and deaths per year than AR15s? Please explain your answer. Remember, we are not dealing with emotion here but rather wishing to save lives.
173 views 47 replies Only ONE gun controller has even attempted to address the OP (and their 'line' did not even involve access to firearms). The claim of 'reasonable restrictions' is looking more and more like BS. ...unless you think 'reasonable' = a total ban on all firearms, of course. Carry on.
