I agree with the libbys on some of this stuff.  A private transfer and ANY purchase of a firearm should be performed by a licensed dealer and require a criminal background check.  Including gun shows.  If gun shows can't perform backgrounds and follow fed guidelines they shouldnt exist.

Clip size, AR's...leave them alone.  More people were murdered by hammers and blunt instruments last year than by rifles...FBI statistics.

I understand the recent anger and emotion but taking it out on law abiding citizens who DON'T commit mass murder or have a mental problem doesn't make sense.

It's like banning cars for all because of the drunk driving of a few.  It's like keeping thin healthy people from drinking Pepsi because fat people drink 4 a day with a gallon of ice cream and a pizza. 

Guns aren't the problem, people are the problem.  We need more birth control......

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

get the 226...in high capacity...good luck finding ammo!!!!! 

This post has been removed.

In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

Anything goes if it does not cause harm in and of itself.  Anything goes in silly land.

This post has been removed.

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

Yes.

In response to tvoter's comment:

A huge percentage of guns are sold with no background checks.  Kids don't wear armor.  And since fully automatic weapons are banned, then I guess banning assault rifles won;t violate the 2nd Amendment.

Background checks for all before the purchase of a gun.  Only licensed gun dealers can sell a weapon.  If you want to sell your gun, it has to be to a licensed gun dealer.

Magazines can't hold more than 10 rounds.

No assault rifles.

 

The alternative - ban all weapons.

This post has been removed.

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

Yeah but people who oppose an assault weapons ban have drawn an invisible line in the sand that somehow makes that logic .... go away.

 

Not a single one of them has been able to articulate a logical principle that would prevent their "it's not the weapon, it's the person" position from extending not only to individual possession of assault weapons, but to individual possession of any weapon.

tvoter said people should have fully automatic weapons......but not RPGs.........   because...
.....because shut up he's right.

All they are able to do is, like tvoter and pinkie, state a conclusion as if it were an argument and say "sigh"

 

 

Too bad their position is completely ret*rded. They know this. That's why all they can do when you point out how far their position leads is say "Mission Accomplished....run away! run away!"

This post has been removed.

In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

I thought I saw you say that once in these threads. But then you argue against every argument for a ban.

Here, I'll alter it for you:

 

In response to Reubenhop's comment: "Anything goes if it does not cause harm in and of itself.  Anything goes in silly land."

 

Yeah but people who oppose an assault weapons ban have drawn an invisible line in the sand that somehow makes that logic .... go away.

 

 

 

Not a single one of them has been able to articulate a logical principle that would prevent their "it's not the weapon, it's the person" position from extending not only to individual possession of assault weapons, but to individual possession of any weapon.

 

tvoter said people should have fully automatic weapons......but not RPGs.........   because...
.....because shut up he's right.

 

All they are able to do is, like tvoter state a conclusion as if it were an argument and declare Mission Accomplished.

 

Too bad their position is completely ret*rded. They know this. That's why all they can do when you point out how far their position leads is say "Mission Accomplished....run away! run away!"

Others, like pinkie, support a ban but oppose all arguments for a ban. Not sure what to do with them, but at least they came to the right conclusion.

This post has been removed.

In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

Well, at least you are honest.  your views are really out there, but you are honest. Getting rid of the 2nd is critical to what, exactly?  What is accomplished by repealing the 2nd amendment, other than giving liberals this euphoric sense of having done something stupid?

I suppose you want to repeal the other amendments as well?  The 5th, the 4th, maybe the 1st?

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Legal, legitimate owners of guns, by definition, are a result of gun control (see "well regulated").

 

Did you actually say "inonsensically"?

In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

Well seeing as he's admitted spitting beer all over his keyboard before noon, we should not be terribly surprised.

In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

Well why do you support the ban if you think it won't accomplish anything on the violence front?

 

I think two main things about it:

Assault weapons + high capacity ban will increase the probability of fewer deaths per incident, and to a lesser extent, may deter someone dead set on avoiding capture and killing themselves after a mass shooting.

The guns that should be legal are those closest to the 2nd Amendment's historical purposes, as identified by the majority in Heller: Individual right to possess for self-defense.

 

 

But if I didn't think the first of those two reasons, I'm not sure I would support a ban on assault weapons. If I really didn't see any meaningful possibility that banning them would accomplish anything, well, why bother?

This post has been removed.