Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
First off, I never said anything about banning machine guns and mortars not being a violation. You've made the statement more than once now that automatic weapons are banned. However, your statements are repeated incorrect, which demonstrates you're either operating under assumptions or are misinformed. Fill out a Form 4, pay your $200 tax to the ATF and shell out $20k and many people could own a machine gun or grenades in a couple months.
Don't believe me, here's a select-fire M16A1 with full-auto capability, legally transferable and available today: Colt M16a1 US prop marked Transferable ! : Machine Guns at GunBroker.com
Second, I never stated there are not potential pros to certain bans. What I have stated is that any ban is unacceptable - just as another ban on alcohol would be unacceptable. A ban does not do anything to keep these things out of the hands of criminals, it merely limits the access to law-abiding citizens. How did the "Gun Free Zone" work out at Sandy Hook? That was the law and it did nothing. How about the fact that both Connecticut and New Jersey have active assault weapon bans - how well did that prevent the crime? How well are drug laws doing at preventing drug addiction? I could go on for pages and pages.
When has a sweeping federal ban on citizens ever worked?
You keep saying that people are refusing to have a conversation about what society wants. What do you think the last 3+ pages of posts have been about? |
"A ban does not do anything to keep these things out of the hands of criminals, it merely limits the access to law-abiding citizens."
I disagree. If something is made illegal, not every single person who wishes they could get one illegally, would be able to get one. Obviously, I would never say that bans cannot be circumvented. But you seem to be saying the opposite, that bans cannot even reduce access to these weapons. I can't believe that's true.
"How did the "Gun Free Zone" work out at Sandy Hook?"
Not so well. Which is precisely why we need to have the conversation about whether or not things can be improved.
All I hear is extremes on this. Liberals seem to think that bans will put a stop to the deaths. You seem to be saying that bans won't stop a single person from getting their jands on what is banned.
I'm guessing the true answer is somewhere in between. If we get to that place, maybe (and maybe not) we can come up with policies that make our kids safer.
And you have me completely on the automatic weapons, I didn't think they were legal for civilians.
"What I have stated is that any ban is unacceptable "
Unacceptable to you. To me, if we can save a few lives and not trample the constitution, I say let's do it.
"When has a sweeping federal ban on citizens ever worked? "
Rarely. But your characterization of this as a "sweeping ban" is, in my opinion, inappropriate. 99% of Americans have zero interest in owning these things. Banning cars would be a "sweeping ban", because it would limit constitutional freedoms for just about everyone.