Ban "Cop Killer" Assault Pistol

I am well aware of the second amendment and the right to bear arms. I am also aware of the "well regulated militia" statement. Do you by any stretch of the imagination believe that the people now in possession of arms gives us this well regulated militia?

More guns in the hands of irresponsible American's heaven forbid.

In my opinion the well regulated militia is they speak of should be the national guard.

If not that does not sit well than a militia should be created and recruited and equipped.

au1929 wrote:

In my opinion the well regulated militia is they speak of should be the national guard. If not that does not sit well than a militia should be created and recruited and equipped. They would be in time of need it seems to me better prepared to deal with the described situations than people in possession of guns running around willy nilly without direction.

How do you suggest that the national guard, or the alternative you propose, protect the people against a tyrannical government? After all, in your scenario they would be recruited by the very same tyrannical government they're supposed to protect the people against. And they would have no arms but those the tyrannical government chose to give them. You don't expect the founding fathers' approach to work out. Could you please describe for me how yours would work?

I applaud your idea, but I'm afraid that what I consider the obvious means of decreasing violence is just as divisive as the gun discussion. In my opinion, America could greatly diminish violent crime by legalizing drugs and prostitution.

when people came from england to the USA it was for religious freedom from the kings tyranny. Not sociopaths sent there.

From what I have learned from this discourse is that all gun owners have them primarily for the purpose of protection against the tyranny of government and invasion by a foreign power. Is this the message I am expected to believe?
In the meantime inorder to keep in practice they will be used to shoot up businesses, schools, religious conferences and etc..

and limit the type of guns and amunition available to the public.

I should think all the automatic weapons be banned and made illegal to own.

Their only purpose is for the killing of people.

And as was recently revealed we need tighter controls on the eligibility to buy and own firearms.

Every small step IMO taken that may save a life is a step in the right direction.

And yes I know about the second amendment. Citizens have the right to bear arms. The government however has the right to specify type as well as to place requirements relative to purchase and control.

That means that AK47s and other semi-automatic assault weapons could begin flooding our streets again, as the weapons of choice of gang members, drug dealers and other dangerous criminals.

You are beating a dead horse. The minutemen were disbanded about 200 years ago. I gave you my opinion. Accept it or not as you please.

Seriously. Imagine a Columbine High School where every student had had a gun of his own. (I don't think even gun rights advocates usually plead for giving guns to minors, but I'll roll with you, here, for a moment). For self-defence, of course. Now, the disturbed kids go on their shooting spree. Everybody starts shooting back. Right in the middle of a high school's hallway or where it was - a hundred kids, all shooting at where they think, amidst the chaos breaking out, the original culprits are. Think about it.

Thomas wrote:

and if it hadn't sunset, the drug dealers would have pointed their web browsers at Amazon.com and purchase a do-it-yourself book on how to home-make a submachine gun from standard metal parts.

Not to pick on Thomas specifically (I swear I'm just going through the thread now, if backwards), but this one too leaves me a little incredulous. I've known two drug dealers in my life, and neither was wont to spend their evening hours behind the PC surfing the Internet for self-study purposes. Nor can I easily imagine either spending the Sunday afternoon in their hobbyshed skilfully assembling metal parts ... ;-)

Yes, theoretically, the drug dealers still could do that, when the law was in place. And the top dogs in the drug trafficking business would I'm sure order some minions to go do exactly that. But re: the petty ghetto drug dealers and gangstas hanging out on the street corner who are responsible for so much of the gun violence, it doesn't seem like the most self-evident "then they would just" kind of scenario.

roger wrote:

There could easily be a higher incidence of robberies, beatings, and even murder, committed without firearms, if all firearms are prohibited. Certainly, if no one had access to guns, gun related crime would cease to exist - possibly to be replaced by a corresponding increase in other crime. Going to extremes, I'm not at all sure I would prefer being beaten to death over being shot.

I dont think thats a legitimate equation. It takes just one second to be shot; it takes a minute to shoot a lot of people. Being beaten to death, in comparison, requires quite an investment of time and energy for the common criminal; time there most often isn't available in the heat of the robbery or burglary. Basically, if you're the girl at the cash register of the place thats being robbed, the chance that they're going to hang around long enough to beat you to death is rather minute - especially compared to what is now all too quickly wrecked with a gun in their hand. Or, to use another example, gang violence is indeed of all ages, and if they didnt have guns they'd use knives; but in one two-minute drive-by shooting, more people get killed, random passers-by included, than could conceivably be 'achieved' in stabbing even in an elaborate exercise of avenge.

Some (date unknown) info on Australia.

"From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia:

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not! and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms,! this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." "