[Jason Tate]

There should not be any outrage from the right about any of those.

[Jason Tate]

And I hope this is just a first step. I believe it should be as hard to get a gun as it is to get a pilot licence.

[Jason Tate]

Too busy to look at the moment -- does this remove the "gun show" loophole?

[Jason Tate]

Apples/oranges.

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by ChaseTx

That seems a bit overdone. I think assault weapons should be banned completely, handguns should have the highest level of security, and guns that are essentially used for sporting, ie hunting rifles, should be easier to get. Still require background checks and safety courses, but it's not as much of a threat as handguns.

I think it's still underdone. Why do we require such extensive training to fly, or drive, and not guns?

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by birdman

That's always a tried a true response to a legitimate question.

If cops have assault weapons, and criminals have assault weapons...then why should I be denied the right to own one to protect myself and my family?

I have said it a million times, I don't want to live in a country where the only two groups of people with these guns are criminals and the government.

How is it a legitimate question? Police (and other emergency responders) have a different set of rights/responsibilities/tools/and training that private citizens do not on a daily basis. They're simply two different entities and to compare them presumes far too much about a priviate citizen. It's just simply not comparable.

If cops can break the speed limit, and criminals can break the speed limit ... then why should I be denied the right to break the speed limit too? They're not analogous.

So you feel safer knowing random people also have assault weapons?

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by birdman

oh so now we can compare guns to cars again?

No, we compare different rights and responsibilities to two different sets of the populace.

Citizens are not police. We carry different rights and responsibilities.

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by ChaseTx

That's not what I did. Police get to do a lot of things that civilians can't do in the course of carrying out their job. And criminals are most likely not going to attack you with an assault rifle. If they do, it's going to be in public, where it would be impossible for you to carry one concealed for your own protection.


Driving is a better comparison. I guess I just imagine flying is much harder than driving or handling a gun properly.

Meh, I think it should be hard to get registered. We cracked down on piloting licensing and all that after 9/11.

[Jason Tate]

I'm arrogant ... even I don't think people wanna kill me or my family in the same way they do the President.

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by birdman

If I am in a mall that someone decides to start shooting up. I sure as shit am not relying on the armed security guard, who is likely an ex-high school football player who failed out of junior college, to help. I hope that there is one of those blasted "gun nuts" there with a conceal carry.

Weird, your stereotyped security guard is how I stereotyped all "gun nuts."

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by birdman

Of course, and that doesn't mean that we shouldn't license people to drive.

Rights and privileges comes with risk and pain...I wouldn't have it any other way. I certainly wouldn't want to wear a flak jacket and a gas mask everywhere I went in the unlikely event that they would come into use, but I wouldn't deny that right to others either.

You make the weirdest apples/oranges comparisons.

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by birdman

Ok I got 5 quotes and I don't want to respond to everyone of them so I will just say this.

I don't believe that someone should be able to get a conceal carry for an assault weapon, but I don't think they should be banned either.

No, nobody needs one. But nobody needs a production race car either. Despite them not typically being street legal, someone may own a race car, work on it, mod it, tow it to a track, and race it as a sport or hobby. Why shouldn't someone be able to keep an assault weapon in their house and go to a gun range to shoot?

We are talking about law-abiding citizens here. The likelihood of an owner of an assault weapon going nuts and shooting up a mall is the same weather the person is a private citizen, a police officer, or a member of the military.

So what's the problem? I don't want guns in the hands of psychos and criminals either. But seeing as I am neither, I should retain that right.

Because due to a variety of barriers of entry (price being a big one) you can't murder massive amounts of people with a production race car in the same efficient manner as an assault weapon.

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by birdman

If you are a criminal and your intention is to harm others, do you go to a gun shop and submit yourself to the rigmarole it takes to buy a gun that can be easily traced back to you, or do you buy your gun out of some dudes trunk?

Pretty sure the statistics say most gun related deaths are from legally purchased guns.

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by birdman

My point is you are assigning law and order to a group of people who disregard both. So what's the point other than to look good to your political base? All these laws do is restrict the rights of people who abide by the law.

Again, get cops to knock it off with the tickets for window tint and start looking for stolen guns! I would support that bill. But then again crap tickets make the state money and looking for criminals costs the state money...so we know that isn't going to happen.

The point is that it works.

States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence. This is a fact.

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by cityian

yeah and how many people do you think died from people PROPERLY and safely using guns at say a firing range, etc? probably none...

Here are 5.