We do not have the right to own RPGs and we should not have the right to own semi automatic weapons. By the way I have a semi automatic weapon. I'm sorry if this loss of this right interferes with someone's hobby but large magazine assault rifles are too dangerous in the hands of an idiot to allow them to be readily available for someone's hobby.
What a stupid statement! If the military decided to take over, all the guns we have would be useless, the country would be under their control in in a few days. You clearly have no idea of how powerful our military is. Good luck fighting an apache helicopter with your AR-15.
Fear of losing your guns also keeps our government tyrannical.
Yeah, there's still no good reason semi-automatic weapons can't be banned.
The only reason the government can get away with some of the crap it pulls with cars is that there is no Constitutional right to drive.
That's a straw man. If you look at how actual tyrannies and despotisms take and keep power, you will not see conquering regular army involved very often. The usual means is death squads and and packs of thugs, drawn from the police and local criminal gangs. (Haiti, Honduras, El Salvador, Chile, Peru, Philippines, these places all had armies. The oppression came from the Tonton Macoutes, the death squads, special departments of the National Guard or police, etc) An armed citizenry does present a significant obstacle to this - which is why authoritarian rule always disarms its citizenry, in advance if possible. This was personal experience and family knowledge among those writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I sometimes hear that during deer season and I always think, "well that guy didn't get his deer"!
No still a shotgun.
Sure.
Really? I thought the max round you could hold was 3 for hunting - it varies from state to state of course.
Ha ha, right the trained, body armored soldiers in tanks with air support from fighters jets are going to never defeat a bunch guys with AR-15s.
Who is talking about morality? I am talking about keeping weapons of mass killings out of the hands of morons. Country's with out these liberal gun laws do not have the problems we have with mass shootings. It is kind of common sense.
Personally, I am glad that the government is trying to keep drunk people from driving cars.
Sure.
Strawman argument. Using it casts doubt on one's agenda.
Only if people voluntarily complied, which criminals don't.
I just told you that background checks don't hamper criminals, because they're criminals.
Yes, start an investigation after you've already caught the wrong person with a gun, usually after a crime.
Who is keeping straw man purchases legal?
Like restricting the gun rights of those on a "no fly" list, this Obama policy removed Constitutional rights without due process of law, itself a violation of Constitutional rights. And the ACLU was even against this Obama policy, on those exact grounds.
Nope. You're just ignorant. The federal government cannot keep such records because that would be a de facto national gun registry, that would be a first step in any confiscation scheme. The record retention I posted are the requirements for every FFL (gun dealer). So with a court order/probable cause (due process), law enforcement can check those records.
Nonsense. It allows prosecution of straw purchases, for example, whether the buyer wants to be prosecuted or not.
You were wrong about that.
Everyone who opposes tightening the background checks and extending them to all sales is protecting them from prosecution.
Knowingly. That's what the background check takes care of.
There were six replies waiting for me in this thread this morning, but I will reply to yours.
How do you think straw purchases are found out?
There you go just making noise again. Oo, oo, oo!
Again, how are you going to keep criminals from avoiding those background checks.
No, it's illegal either way. Knowingly doing so just makes you more legally liable.
Of course.
By deterring straw buyers.
Only with large penalties attached to non-compliance.
And with background checks required, you would be knowingly doing so.
And those who feared the penalties of breaking the law, if the gun were found in a crime (or accident, or concealed carry application, etc).
Holy Christ on a Pogo Stick are you paranoid and delusional...Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
OK so an amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment is possible
............
(good luck with that)
....................................................
I ain't gonna vote for it.
Strawman argument.
