[ChaseTx]

No there isn't a reason for assault weapons to be used outside military and enforcement use in cases where criminals are using them. That doesn't stop gun rights people from bitching about any regulation on them.

I'm sure some of this stuff is already required at least at the state level.

Also, are back ground checks really not federally required already? I need to get out of this country.

[Jason Tate]

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

[Jason Tate]

Apples/oranges.

[ChaseTx]

Originally Posted by 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 license.

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.

[loveisdead]

Originally Posted by birdman

So tell why a cop would need an assault weapon, but a private citizen does not?

Originally Posted by Jason Tate

Apples/oranges.

This.

[ChaplainTappman]

Originally Posted by Jason Tate

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

Yep

[ChaseTx]

Originally Posted by birdman

So tell why a cop would need an assault weapon, but a private citizen does not?

Same reason you give right of way for emergency vehicles.

[birdman]

Originally Posted by loveisdead

This.

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.

[ChaplainTappman]

Pretty sure most cops do not carry what would be considered assault weapons. Think those are usually left to special forces.

[birdman]

Originally Posted by ChaseTx

Same reason you give right of way for emergency vehicles.

oh so now we can compare guns to cars again?

[birdman]

Originally Posted by ChaplainTappman

Pretty sure most cops do not carry what would be considered assault weapons. Think those are usually left to special forces.

I believe they are kept in the trunk of their cruisers.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

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.

You can protect your family with a glock just as well.

[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?

[ChaplainTappman]

Originally Posted by birdman

I believe they are kept in the trunk of their cruisers.

Not a national policy. They're also there as a last resort - hence why they're in the trunk. An assault weapon isn't necessary or recommended to diffuse the overwhelming majority of situations.

[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?