@firefly,
firefly wrote:
I'll say to you what I said to oralloy...
We previously did have an assault weapons ban--it was not ruled unconstitutional. We need another ban, one with fewer loop-holes, and one with a better definition of "assault weapon" that more clearly reflects the intention of the ban and what it is designed to prevent.
And, Justice Scalia has clearly said that some weapons can be prohibited from sale, and some people can be prohibited from buying.
I'll trust Scalia's interpretation over yours any day.
Quote:If the anti gun advocates called handguns 'killing machines'...
Some handguns are killing machines. Feel better now, VK?
All guns are killing machines--that's what guns are meant to do.
That's why we need gun control and regulation.
That's not being "anti-gun", it's about creating safer conditions for having guns in circulation so the general public is not unduly endangered.
Why can't firearms be called 'self defense apparatuses' or 'life-saving tools?'
Quote:Some handguns are killing machines. Feel better now, VK?
Really, some handguns are killing machines? Then which handguns are not killing machines?
Quote:All guns are killing machines--that's what guns are meant to do.
Wait, back up, I thought you implied some handguns are not killing machine. If some handguns are not killing machines then why are all guns killing machines? Are you suggesting that some handguns that are not killing machines are not guns?
Quote:That's why we need gun control and regulation.
That's not being "anti-gun", it's about creating safer conditions for having guns in circulation so the general public is not unduly endangered.
I'm ok with gun control and regulation, as long as the government doesn't take the constitution and wipe there ass with it. As long as "stricter" doesn't mean unconstitutional.
I've been meaning to ask you, what do you want to define assault weapons as?
Based on the 1994 AWB, this is that deemed "assault weapon" to be more "dangerous" than a semi auto.
By you wanting better definition, do you want Assault weapons redefined to include all semi-autos? If so you're anti gun not to mention that it is not constitutional.
You can’t legislate away violence. Mass killings are almost always the product of mental illness, but most homicides by firearms do not occur during mass shootings. They occur in everyday incidences of domestic violence, drug-trade related violence, poverty related crime, etc.
That’s not to say that I’m against thorough background checks, mental health screening, etc. If we can keep dangerous individuals from buying handguns legally, we at least partially cut down on their ability to acquire them (They could still be bought illegally).
As a moderate democrat, I'll be disappointed in Obama if he reinstates any form of AWB.
The extraordinary rise in gun sales, both handguns and rifles, indicates any attempt to re-instate any form of AWB would be widely unpopular and would subject the bill’s sponsors and supporters to considerable opposition from their constituents.
Now, I do agree it’s reasonable to draw lines. Where do we draw them? Tanks, nukes, fighter jets, and blackhawks (not that me, you, or any average citizen could afford them in the first place). Weapons such as AK’s, AR-15’s, and even shotguns aren’t meant to be carried around, but for home defense and mainly to protect yourself against a tyrannical government. Criminals can get their hands on AR-15’s, AK’s, and pretty much any other type of gun if the AWB if reinstated from the black market easily. So, it makes no sense to tell the good citizens they can’t have them.
I have faith that Scalia would not support legislation that is unconstitutional. As a constitutional originalist, Scalia has said determinations regarding barring of certain high-powered weapons will have to be made “very carefully” looking within the context of 18th-century history.
