General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBanning assault weapons and restricting ammo
The argument for not doing so is that they will still get them.
Which is bullshit.
What is the counter to that? I know there is one.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Look at CT and NY compliance rates. No red state will enforce it - there will be sanctuary cities everywhere. They will get away with it like they do in CT and NY - in many states elected officials will be leading the opposition.
rockfordfile
(8,695 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)I believe in the 1930's?
In 20 years you couldn't get one.
It takes time but with a buyback program it could be sped up.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Not the case with assault weapons.
Says who?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Has been doing it for decades.
world wide wally
(21,734 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Thats what happens when Wyoming has as many votes as California.
LonePirate
(13,407 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Dem Senators from pro-gun states killed the AWB.
LonePirate
(13,407 posts)If we control the Senate and the filibuster is removed, we will pass gun reform despite any screaming from gundamentalists, be they at DU or anywhere else.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Filibuster is irrelevant if you dont have the votes in the first place. A blue Senate means electing pro-gun Dems. Which means no votes on an AWB.
LonePirate
(13,407 posts)Pro gun Dems are effectively neutered in the party nowadays.
hack89
(39,171 posts)To get a blue Senate. They are pro-gun states. They may elect a Democrat but not if they run on a gun banning platform.
They are not progressive states. We are not talking progressive Democrats.
LonePirate
(13,407 posts)Even in states like AZ, GA, IA, ME, NC, and TX, any newly elected Dem Senator will support an AWB. They may not run on the issue but they will vote for it. You are out of touch with the mainstream Dem party and voters if you think a Dem Senator other than Manchin would vote against an AWB, especially since one was in place up until the W years.
hack89
(39,171 posts)gun control is not that big a priority to voters.
This is what happened after Sandy Hook:
15 Dems voted no. And they paid no price for it. And things have not changed that much in six years.
LonePirate
(13,407 posts)When O'Rourke - by practically all assessments is a conservative moderate in the party - is calling for an AWB, then the rest of the party supports such a measure. You will not find two Dem votes in the Senate, let alone 15, to vote against it. And yes, times have changed dramatically in the six years since Sandy Hook. You might want to brush up on your knowledge of current events and party positions. Are you from a red state by chance? That's about the only reason you are so bearish on this, unless of course you are one of DU's resident unrestricted gun supporters. Walmart would not have taken the actions today if we were in a pro-gun environment.
hack89
(39,171 posts)A state where an AWB gets rejected year after year. I am very much in touch with how Dem voters view gun bans.
world wide wally
(21,734 posts)DO change.
world wide wally
(21,734 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)AWBs dont have that level of support.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The problem with AWBs is that "assault" weapons don't actually fire faster than other weapons.
Groundhawg
(540 posts)Want legally.
aikoaiko
(34,161 posts)We required them to register them with the Federal Government in the 1930s.
People could still buy new machine guns as long as they registered them after that until 1986.
In 1968, the ATF declared an amnesty and reopened the registry to those he didn' register their machine guns.
It wasn't until 1986 that the public couldn't obtain new machine guns, but could still purchase and re-register already registered machine guns.
We have never confiscated or forced buybacks of legally owned machine guns. There has only been one shooting with a legally owned machine gun since the implementation of the NFA.
That's what is disconcerting about the current forced buyback effort. We acting in a more extreme manner than we have with machine guns. That doesn't make sense.
spanone
(135,781 posts)it's bullshit
The gunsplainers will read this.
Wiseman32218
(291 posts)Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)spanone
(135,781 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)The argument against banning "assault" weapons is that they are exactly the same as "non-assault" weapons; it's a made-up category based on stupid crap like having a bayonet lug or what shape the grip is.
The rifle Lanza used at Sandy Hook, for instance, wasn't an "assault weapon". If the more restrictive California definition were in force, it would have needed a somewhat different grip shape. It's just a silly law.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Amishman
(5,553 posts)Semi automatics definitely reach the common use criteria set by Heller and Miller SCOTUS rulings
A magazine capacity limit and buyback by itself has a way better chance of both passing and surviving, and accomplishes almost as much.
BlueTsunami2018
(3,480 posts)If we ban the assault rifles, people will still hide them, bury them or whatever but Id rather have them hidden and buried than easily accessible. Ammo can be smuggled or even made but how many people actually have the means to do so? How many people who do have the means will risk distributing it with a heavy sentence hanging over them?
Just because you cant eliminate these things completely doesnt mean you shouldnt make them much harder to obtain.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Goes to prison.
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)Limiting availability should have a significant impact in several ways.
Right now, they can be openly transported and carried, (as we have seen). If the right restrictions were in place, that would end, so we wouldn't have them flaunted in public. If that were the case, the police would arrest the persona and confiscate the gun.
The same would apply to transporting them. It would make it more difficult and a traffic stop or other situations would expose that and again, arrest and confiscation.
A final point would be accessibility. Once they are prohibited, they won't be available commercially, which means less of them in circulation.
Once it moves to the kind of sub rosa and black market arena, it at least remains in a criminal context, which is fine with me.
Why would the black market and clandestine aspects negate that? You name it and people can get it, so it is about volume, to me. Oh, and a signal of less tolerance and social acceptance, which is a point we need to make.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)the damn things like opioids.
Kilgore
(1,733 posts)Was signed into law by Bill Clinton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban