Defend your right to own a car.

[David88vert]

First of all, you make a distinction between criminals and non-criminals as if people are always one or the other. The fact is, every criminal was at one point a non-criminal before they committed a crime. The ease of which non-criminals can get a gun is therefore not an entirely separate issue from the ease with which a criminal can get a gun. Further, a large number of guns used in crimes are stolen. If those guns were not purchased legally, they could not have been stolen and subsequently used in a crime. What it boils down to is this... if there are less guns available to the general public, there will also be less available to criminals. (keyword is LESS, not NONE)

Now obviously you can't legislate away crazy people killing others, nor can you make the millions of guns already in the country go away, nor will we ever prevent all gun crime. But it is not irrational to think that over a long period of time, having less guns could lead to at least a small decrease in gun crime.

As I have stated before, I do not personally think that we need an assault weapons ban but I do understand where the proponents of such a ban are coming from and I don't think they are morons for the thinking that way.

Innocent until proven guilty ... or just assume all are guilty? Just food for thought....

[bu villain]

Innocent until proven guilty ... or just assume all are guilty? Just food for thought....

Guilty of what? Gun owners aren't immune to being robbed. And the response was to the comment that "criminals aren't affected by laws". I was saying that they are affected at very least indirectly.

[David88vert]

Guilty of what? Gun owners aren't immune to being robbed. And the response was to the comment that "criminals aren't affected by laws". I was saying that they are affected at very least indirectly.

"First of all, you make a distinction between criminals and non-criminals as if people are always one or the other. The fact is, every criminal was at one point a non-criminal before they committed a crime. The ease of which non-criminals can get a gun is therefore not an entirely separate issue from the ease with which a criminal can get a gun. Further, a large number of guns used in crimes are stolen. If those guns were not purchased legally, they could not have been stolen and subsequently used in a crime. What it boils down to is this... if there are less guns available to the general public, there will also be less available to criminals. (keyword is LESS, not NONE)"

Kind of obvious - Suggesting the removal of Constitutional rights from non-criminals in the hopes that such an effort would affect the ability of criminals to obtain weapons illegally, which is at its core, is simply negating the differences between criminals and non-criminals by criminalizing the behavior of non-criminals.

[bu villain]

Kind of obvious - Suggesting the removal of Constitutional rights from non-criminals in the hopes that such an effort would affect the ability of criminals to obtain weapons illegally, which is at its core, is simply negating the differences between criminals and non-criminals by criminalizing the behavior of non-criminals.

Not everyone believe owning an assault weapon is a constitutional right. Most people are fine with background checks. Is that also a criminalizing of the behavior of non-criminals?

[David88vert]

Not everyone believe owning an assault weapon is a constitutional right. Most people are fine with background checks. Is that also a criminalizing of the behavior of non-criminals?

Background checks are not removing a Constitutional right IF the person is not a criminal. The laws are very clear on this point.

The very definition of the current proposed legistation would make any semi-automatic weapon illegal. That's a very broad net to cast.

[Sinfix_15]

Background checks are not removing a Constitutional right IF the person is not a criminal. The laws are very clear on this point.

The very definition of the current proposed legistation would make any semi-automatic weapon illegal. That's a very broad net to cast.

However they want to shape it or sell it, the left wants to get rid of all guns. They cast a broad net on purpose, to remove as many guns as possible.

[bu villain]

Where are the outcrys to ban SUVs? They are obviously more deadly, and available everywhere to everyone, with no restrictions. Why isn't Obama on the TV promising to push for "SUV control"?

I already answered this in post #616. We do have restrictions on SUVs and all cars precisely because they are dangerous.

Background checks are not removing a Constitutional right IF the person is not a criminal. The laws are very clear on this point.

The very definition of the current proposed legistation would make any semi-automatic weapon illegal. That's a very broad net to cast.

I believe the Supreme Court already ruled that a ban on assault weapons is not unconstitutional last time the ban was in effect. We would have to wait and see regarding all semi-autos but I doubt that legislation would get passed in the first place. I agree we should not ban them but just because I disagree doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.