- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
What does the other crimes mention have to do with anything? Well, this a gun control thread relating to all gun violence, not just Mass shootings.
You folks on the other end of the spectrum would do well to make up your mind about this. Here you claim you want to make this about all gun violence. And thus any solution must curb all gun violence or its not passing your muster. However, right on this debate site are at least two threads started by gun advocates -one by Goshin and one by Lee White - in which they law down the restriction that they do NOT want to hear about any law which will expressly NOT prevent Connecticut atrocities. Its not enough to come up with a suggestion that will do some good. They want it to make sure it prevents future atrocities just like this one or else they do not want to entertain it and will mock anything else that is brought up.
So which is it?
Which way does the right want it?
Or do you want it both ways and it depends on which argument allows you to win that particular point at that particular point in time?
You also seem to be advocating for adopting a foreign law that you admit to not knowing the details of.
I am NOT advocating that we copy this foreign law. I simply pointed out that another nation similar to ours adopted a law for a specific goal and it achieved that goal.
You equate some towns restrictions with nation wide restriction/laws. You say it is not a curtailment on the right to own guns, but it clearly is taking away the right to purchase many different guns.
The Constitution never guarantees the right of a citizen to purchase and bear any gun of their choice. To pretend that it does is false and a lie.
You also don't seem to understand what they Clinton era "ban" really said. Not all "assault weapons" were baned from new sales, the ban only affected new sales, not the transfer or sale of pre-existing arms or magazines.
Yes. I understand that.
Was the ban ever constitutionally challenged in the Supreme Court?
I find no reversal of it by the Supreme Court. And it was on the books for a full decade allowing for plenty of challenges if anyone saw fit or had reasonable grounds to do so. There might be an excellent reason why no challenge ever reached the court.
What reducing affect do you think a new ban would have on pre-existing guns and magazines?
None.Sorry that is wrong. It makes them more valuable and the price will go up.
You also seem to equate "assault weapons" with mass shootings. Tell me, what "assault weapon" was used in Tucson? What firearms were used at columbine and did they get them through legal means? Were "assault weapons" the only ones used during any of the mass shootings?
I am NOT equating anything. I am relating what happened in Australia and what they did and the results they achieved.