Military-Grade, Assault Weapons

[homersapien 12,172]

The phrase "radical Muslim/Islamic terrorist" is nothing more than a political football. "Saying it" would accomplish exactly what? Quit dodging the issue ...

bull****. It's NONE of that. We called NAZIS by their name. We called Japanese by their name. This is being clear, honest and SPECIFIC, not blaming " Islam ", but drawing a clear distinction between those who choose to live in the 21st century and those who want to relive the 11th century.

If anyone is playing politics here, it's the Left, not everyone else, who isn't so damn afraid to call evil by its name. Sticking fingers in your ears and covering your eyes haven't had 1 damn ounce of impact on what these sub humans are doing. Stop *****-footing around and wake the hell up.

They're not the JV team. They're not a " man caused event " , or " work place violence. "

They are radical, murdering Islamists.

You didn't explain why it's not a political football.

[homersapien 12,172]

I think the biggest road block to a common sense solution is the over the top hyperbole and rhetoric coming from the Left.

It's what they almost always do, paint the opposition as stupid, inbred , angry, and fearful hayseeds, who don't want " change ".

And, as Reagan so eloquently put it, " The trouble with ( Leftists ) is not that they're ignorant, it's just they know so much which isn't so. "

Damn, you exploded my 'Irony Alarm' again.

They just don't make these things strong enough. I need a Raptor-strength version.

[homersapien 12,172]

This is probably covered in another thread but I wanted to get specific ...

Personally, I can not fathom a single situation where an ordinary citizens would have any need to purchase and possess a military grade fully automatic assault rifle.

If you disagree, could you please explain why these should be legal to purchase?

I own three automatic weapons, and several semi-automatic weapons (including a few AR's). I enjoy collecting, and I enjoy them immensely at the range. The automatic weapons are usually a great conversation piece.

That AR-15's and AK-47's can be legally purchased is not the problem, just as banning them (which will never effectively happen) will not solve the problem. The problem is not the type of gun that can be bought, it is that the entire process of acquiring a firearm is easier than getting a driver's license. In many states, there is no regulation of private sales of firearms at all.

If the Orlando shooter legally bought the gun last week, maybe there needs to be waiting periods before obtaining the weapons. That subtle deterrence may stop a small percentage of mass shootings, meaning more lives are saved.

I know I've mentioned it in numerous other threads, but I have no problem at all with firearms being more difficult to obtain. If there was a push to classify sporting rifles as NFA weapons, I could possibly be brought on board with that. They would still be obtainable for anyone that should be able to have one, and the process would either deter or exclude people like this particular killer.

The NRA has a default position of fighting any legislation on firearms of any kind, and that is not a position I can agree with. That said, there are millions of sporting rifles in the United States, and that represents millions of people that have a negative opinion on the issue of banning their sporting rifles; I should be counted among them. I do think that we need to take a look at our background check process, and I do think all private sales should be subject to background checks as well. The goal should be keeping all firearms out of the wrong hands.

I agree with better background checks even of private sales. I also think that we need laws that people like this killer should have had a red flag based on the fact that he had been involved in two separate investigations because of things he said to people and on social media so he couldn't buy a gun. We need lots of improvements in our system. How did his father get a Visa to come to the US when he has Social media Blogs supporting the Taliban, his dad isn't allowed in he isn't born here. He went to a Mosque in Orlando a few weeks before where he British Imam who has openly called for killing of Gays was given a Visa and allowed entry into the US. We have a policy with some countries where you are automatically qualified for a visitors Visa if you are from some countries and we don't check you against a list. That Cleric should never have been allowed in the country.

Donald Trump is wrong about saying all Muslims should be blocked from coming into the US but he is right that we need to greatly improve the vetting process. In this case we saw a Cleric with a shady Background from Britain come to use for an inflammatory speech and an Afghan who says he supports the Taliban is allowed to immigrate here.

Problems with Background checks is a sticky issue. Obviously anybody on a watch list should automatically not be able to buy a gun but should have right to find out why they are on watch list. Sometimes innocent people with similar names get put on watch list. Other issue is people receiving help for some types of mental health issues should not be allowed to buy a gun but Doctor Patient confidentiality prevents this for occurring.

Banning this type of weapon would just force a sicko to change weapons. Buy a semi-automatic shotgun saw off part of the barrel modify the 3 shot or 7 shot clip to be a 15 shot clip not legal but you can do your self. Have multiple clips and in a tight space like the club it would actually be a more lethal weapon.

Everybody wants a quick fix it won't happen. better background checks will help expanding to private sales will help, Better vetting of people coming into the country to visit or immigrate will help. Allowing Doctor's to put people being treated on a list not to buy guns without giving up details of what they are being treated for will help. None of this will stop the issue. The San Bernardino shooter got a friend to buy the guns. Everyday people in Chicago are being shot by gang members who could never legally buy a gun. That is why many people believe so strongly in the second amendment as they believe you must be able to protect yourself.

Yeah, let's just do nothing - not even the obvious - until the perfect fix presents itself. Of course, there never will be such such thing as the perfect fix.

After all, we all need military weapons to protect ourselves. :-\

[AURaptor 1,137]

Damn, you exploded my 'Irony Alarm' again.

They just don't make these things strong enough. I need a Raptor-strength version.

Stupid and vapid post. Again, from Homer.

[RunInRed 18,113]

Raptor - But you didn't answer my question, what would calling them that specific phrase achieve?

[AURaptor 1,137]

Raptor - But you didn't answer my question, what would calling them that specific phrase achieve?

I DID answer your question. That ' specific phrase ' is simply who they are.

Why are you making this more difficult than it isn't ? Because there's nothing remotely difficult at all about it. You're just swallowing the administration's kool-aid on this matter. Literally spewing out their words,damn near verbatim.

[channonc 466]

Either. And the buyback wouldn't necessarily have to be for their original value, but some discounted value according to how long they have been owned. Considering the amount we already spend on security, I don't think that's unreasonable.

And I don't have a problem with allowing qualified hobbyists to retain such weapons provided they undergo an appropriate background check, register the weapons, and be held responsible if one of them goes missing. (I'm just thinking out loud here.)

I agree with your last paragraph. The commercial retail displays of military weapons in virtually every gun shop is obscene.

Personally, I think that all firearm purchases should undergo more stringent background checks (IE licensing) and that all weapons should be registered. I cannot get behind holding people responsible for what happens when a weapon goes missing, unless they did not report it missing. I do not make a distinction between assault weapons and any other firearms, because I do not believe one is warranted. I think firearms in general are too easy to obtain. That same shooter could have done plenty of damage in that setting with a pair of Glock 17's.

I do need to make my thoughts on background checks clear: I support a license system that has an application process. When you apply for a firearms license, an exhaustive background check should occur. That check should start with both criminal convictions and arrest records in all 50 states. An application that has arrests for domestic violence, or has had restraining orders filed against them, or has been committed for mental evaluation requires actual human followup. Interviews of family, coworkers, and acquaintances should occur. The same should occur for anyone that is or was on any terrorism related list, or that agencies have had terrorism-related interest in. I like the license system because it makes the issue of whether any firearms are legally possessed, or whether you can purchase one, very easy to ascertain. I would say the license should be renewed annually.

As for the retail displays of assault weapons, AR-15's are the popular choice for the tacticool / mall ninja crowd. The entry level ones are not expensive, and there are all sorts of accessories available. You are just not cool unless you show up at the range with an AR decked out with an EOTech holo and magnifier, foregrip of some kind, laser, tactical flashlight, chest rig, and 3-point sling.

I don't disagree with anything you said here, but I'll play devil's advocate.

Would charging for a license, effectively prohibit some from exercising a right? Does it create more of a black market for illegal weapons? These are just questions that popped into my head when I looked at it from the other side.

[cole256 17,085]

" A hand gun, self-defense ... whatever, fine. But these military style weapons need to be banned."

Wrong. They don't.

Ok, so what's your suggestion to keep these out of the hands of any nut job who wants to walk into a crowded space and open fire?

I don't think that there is a real answer to that question. No matter the weapon, all one needs is the willingness to trade one's life for another. If you ban assault rifles, people will be able to find them on the black market and those that undedstand and know how the black market work aren't the ones looking for collection pieces. Just like prohibition, some group will fill the vacuum left behind.

We could say things about drugs but they still have laws against them, could we not?

[AU-HANDLEY-TIGER 205]

stay away from some of us who want to own AR-15's or other guns...you fail to blame the cause of why this happened. I didn't read anyone yell about fertilizer after the ok city bombing....and those calling people dumb because we don't agree with you wanting to ban weapons, you should look in the mirror. There is a radicalization going on in this country in the mosques being lead by wabbisim of the islamic religion whether you believe it or not. Some of our so called leaders have been brainwashed to be so PC that they refuse to call it out. There have been many links over the years to the brotherhood, etc that preach this kind of hate but some of you blame the guns...there are probably over 3 million of the ARs in this country that are owned by mostly law abiding citizens but when something like this happens some of you loose your minds and blame the gun....well someone has to pull the trigger and with that some of these killers are either deranged or they follow a certain type of fanatical religion. If you have ever spent time in certain parts of the world or even opened your eyes to it you would see it. Most on this board haven't spent much time with the locals in the middle east where this comes from. You would be thinking differently if you had and listened to some of what is being said over there...there are too many people out there that hate out of religion...that is the problem...corrupt religion is the main culprit and that isn't what is being called out in most of these cases....why? who the heck knows unless it is people who don't want to be offensive or be perceived as offensive...that is our problem...

We aren't "blaming the gun" :-\/> We are blaming a culture and legal system that makes is so easy for terrorists and/or crazy people to acquire military grade weaponry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/16/why-the-nra-opposed-laws-to-prevent-suspected-terrorists-from-buying-guns/

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/17/gun-purchases-legal-for-those-on-us-terror-watchlists.html

Don't forget the government programs like the fast and furious that give them out like Halloween candy

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

In all this talk about banning sporting rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever you want to call them, no one has mentioned how to enact such a ban. My three NFA weapons (automatic) are worth over $100,000. My collection of semi-auto AK-47's and AR-15's is probably worth over $10,000. Does anyone think I am just going to hand those over for little or no compensation? Do the millions of currently owned AR-15's get grandfathered?

Conservatives are never going to vote for the cost of buying all of these banned rifles. No owner of any of these rifles will ever support a ban that does not include appropriate compensation or grandfathering (if you can get them to support a ban at all). The NRA, and all gun advocacy groups, will fight it tooth and nail. Instead of concentrating on irrational knee-jerk proposals to ban firearms that millions of people own and use without incident, why not concentrate on proposals that might actually be able to gain traction with people like me?

The bottom line to me is that the type of firearms this killer used are ultimately irrelevant. The important thing is that he had no business possessing a firearm of any type, whether it be an AR-15 or a single-shot .22LR. I do not want such people to possess an AR-15, or a Glock 17, or a shotgun. Why don't we concentrate on that? Proposals crafted with the goal of keeping firearms out of the wrong hands are proposals I can get behind.

Its not as simple as saying we need to keep them out of the wrong hands. Who are the wrong hands? I believe many vets don't need to carry as a matter of fact. Many people with mental disabilities don't need the weapons but where is the line in saying you can possess one but the other can't. Because in actuality, you're saying you can have a pistol, but this guy shouldn't have one and he is SOL if he is ever attacked. On the other end, I don't believe being a felon at one point automatically disfranchises the person from carrying. Also, Muslim Americans deserve to carry too if the public can. Saying otherwise is discriminatory. There are just so many questions to contemplate that it's hard to make such decisions, but still, it's better than being a brainless NRA sheep.

Who are you to judge whether vets deserve or don't deserve to carry? There are two vets in my house so you say that we can't carry? who gave you that right? Are you aligned with that general who says that vets should get behind him and support a ban? give me a break...I may or may not own a weapon but that still doesn't give you the right to say that I shouldn't carry one...

[aujeff11 6,243]

In all this talk about banning sporting rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever you want to call them, no one has mentioned how to enact such a ban. My three NFA weapons (automatic) are worth over $100,000. My collection of semi-auto AK-47's and AR-15's is probably worth over $10,000. Does anyone think I am just going to hand those over for little or no compensation? Do the millions of currently owned AR-15's get grandfathered?

Conservatives are never going to vote for the cost of buying all of these banned rifles. No owner of any of these rifles will ever support a ban that does not include appropriate compensation or grandfathering (if you can get them to support a ban at all). The NRA, and all gun advocacy groups, will fight it tooth and nail. Instead of concentrating on irrational knee-jerk proposals to ban firearms that millions of people own and use without incident, why not concentrate on proposals that might actually be able to gain traction with people like me?

The bottom line to me is that the type of firearms this killer used are ultimately irrelevant. The important thing is that he had no business possessing a firearm of any type, whether it be an AR-15 or a single-shot .22LR. I do not want such people to possess an AR-15, or a Glock 17, or a shotgun. Why don't we concentrate on that? Proposals crafted with the goal of keeping firearms out of the wrong hands are proposals I can get behind.

Its not as simple as saying we need to keep them out of the wrong hands. Who are the wrong hands? I believe many vets don't need to carry as a matter of fact. Many people with mental disabilities don't need the weapons but where is the line in saying you can possess one but the other can't. Because in actuality, you're saying you can have a pistol, but this guy shouldn't have one and he is SOL if he is ever attacked. On the other end, I don't believe being a felon at one point automatically disfranchises the person from carrying. Also, Muslim Americans deserve to carry too if the public can. Saying otherwise is discriminatory. There are just so many questions to contemplate that it's hard to make such decisions, but still, it's better than being a brainless NRA sheep.

Who are you to judge whether vets deserve or don't deserve to carry? There are two vets in my house so you say that we can't carry? who gave you that right? Are you aligned with that general who says that vets should get behind him and support a ban? give me a break...I may or may not own a weapon but that still doesn't give you the right to say that I shouldn't carry one...

I said many vets dont need to carry, not all. I personally know a couple vets that are struggling with PTSD in various ways and I dont trust them with weapons. Also, is it not true that roughly 22 vets commit suicide everyday? I never said anything about whether they deserve to carry or whether they dont deserve it. Total misrepresentation of what I said.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

stay away from some of us who want to own AR-15's or other guns...you fail to blame the cause of why this happened. I didn't read anyone yell about fertilizer after the ok city bombing....and those calling people dumb because we don't agree with you wanting to ban weapons, you should look in the mirror. There is a radicalization going on in this country in the mosques being lead by wabbisim of the islamic religion whether you believe it or not. Some of our so called leaders have been brainwashed to be so PC that they refuse to call it out. There have been many links over the years to the brotherhood, etc that preach this kind of hate but some of you blame the guns...there are probably over 3 million of the ARs in this country that are owned by mostly law abiding citizens but when something like this happens some of you loose your minds and blame the gun....well someone has to pull the trigger and with that some of these killers are either deranged or they follow a certain type of fanatical religion. If you have ever spent time in certain parts of the world or even opened your eyes to it you would see it. Most on this board haven't spent much time with the locals in the middle east where this comes from. You would be thinking differently if you had and listened to some of what is being said over there...there are too many people out there that hate out of religion...that is the problem...corrupt religion is the main culprit and that isn't what is being called out in most of these cases....why? who the heck knows unless it is people who don't want to be offensive or be perceived as offensive...that is our problem...

We aren't "blaming the gun" :-\ We are blaming a culture and legal system that makes is so easy for terrorists and/or crazy people to acquire military grade weaponry.

https://www.washingt...om-buying-guns/

http://america.aljaz...watchlists.html

BS the first thing you do is call for a ban on types of guns...you don't see the real problem...the gun used in the shootings didn't pull it's own trigger...there is a larger problem here that people like you don't want to admit too...there is a group that is out there that wants to cause terror....if this was a biker gang you would be all right with putting them under surveillance but there are known radical imams in this country preaching hate and you may have a problem with it and some of these same ones are calling for people to kill Jews, Gays, etc but you have a fear of putting these guys under surveillance and seeing who they are preaching to and thus taking a hard look at those folks?

The King of Jordan and the head of Egypt said the same thing that some are corrupting their religion and doing these acts of violence but yet some on this board are only talking about banning guns and saying oh, we investigated this guy 2 times. but yet when the state dept called off looking at the radicals imams we heard nothing from any of you....but you are still ok with this admin who doesn't want to offend anyone but folks who believe in the constitution...

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

In all this talk about banning sporting rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever you want to call them, no one has mentioned how to enact such a ban. My three NFA weapons (automatic) are worth over $100,000. My collection of semi-auto AK-47's and AR-15's is probably worth over $10,000. Does anyone think I am just going to hand those over for little or no compensation? Do the millions of currently owned AR-15's get grandfathered?

Conservatives are never going to vote for the cost of buying all of these banned rifles. No owner of any of these rifles will ever support a ban that does not include appropriate compensation or grandfathering (if you can get them to support a ban at all). The NRA, and all gun advocacy groups, will fight it tooth and nail. Instead of concentrating on irrational knee-jerk proposals to ban firearms that millions of people own and use without incident, why not concentrate on proposals that might actually be able to gain traction with people like me?

The bottom line to me is that the type of firearms this killer used are ultimately irrelevant. The important thing is that he had no business possessing a firearm of any type, whether it be an AR-15 or a single-shot .22LR. I do not want such people to possess an AR-15, or a Glock 17, or a shotgun. Why don't we concentrate on that? Proposals crafted with the goal of keeping firearms out of the wrong hands are proposals I can get behind.

Its not as simple as saying we need to keep them out of the wrong hands. Who are the wrong hands? I believe many vets don't need to carry as a matter of fact. Many people with mental disabilities don't need the weapons but where is the line in saying you can possess one but the other can't. Because in actuality, you're saying you can have a pistol, but this guy shouldn't have one and he is SOL if he is ever attacked. On the other end, I don't believe being a felon at one point automatically disfranchises the person from carrying. Also, Muslim Americans deserve to carry too if the public can. Saying otherwise is discriminatory. There are just so many questions to contemplate that it's hard to make such decisions, but still, it's better than being a brainless NRA sheep.

Who are you to judge whether vets deserve or don't deserve to carry? There are two vets in my house so you say that we can't carry? who gave you that right? Are you aligned with that general who says that vets should get behind him and support a ban? give me a break...I may or may not own a weapon but that still doesn't give you the right to say that I shouldn't carry one...

I said many vets dont need to carry, not all. I personally know a couple vets that are struggling with PTSD in various ways and I dont trust them with weapons. Also, is it not true that roughly 22 vets commit suicide everyday? I never said anything about whether they deserve to carry or whether they dont deserve it. Total misrepresentation of what I said.

I highlighted your words...you never said anything about PTSD or suicide until called out...suicide will happen with or without guns...PTSD is something different as it can be classified as a mental health issue thus they should qualify in a background check...

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

" A hand gun, self-defense ... whatever, fine. But these military style weapons need to be banned."

Wrong. They don't.

Ok, so what's your suggestion to keep these out of the hands of any nut job who wants to walk into a crowded space and open fire?

I don't think that there is a real answer to that question. No matter the weapon, all one needs is the willingness to trade one's life for another. If you ban assault rifles, people will be able to find them on the black market and those that undedstand and know how the black market work aren't the ones looking for collection pieces. Just like prohibition, some group will fill the vacuum left behind.

We could say things about drugs but they still have laws against them, could we not?

apples and oranges...nice try though

[aujeff11 6,243]

In all this talk about banning sporting rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever you want to call them, no one has mentioned how to enact such a ban. My three NFA weapons (automatic) are worth over $100,000. My collection of semi-auto AK-47's and AR-15's is probably worth over $10,000. Does anyone think I am just going to hand those over for little or no compensation? Do the millions of currently owned AR-15's get grandfathered?

Conservatives are never going to vote for the cost of buying all of these banned rifles. No owner of any of these rifles will ever support a ban that does not include appropriate compensation or grandfathering (if you can get them to support a ban at all). The NRA, and all gun advocacy groups, will fight it tooth and nail. Instead of concentrating on irrational knee-jerk proposals to ban firearms that millions of people own and use without incident, why not concentrate on proposals that might actually be able to gain traction with people like me?

The bottom line to me is that the type of firearms this killer used are ultimately irrelevant. The important thing is that he had no business possessing a firearm of any type, whether it be an AR-15 or a single-shot .22LR. I do not want such people to possess an AR-15, or a Glock 17, or a shotgun. Why don't we concentrate on that? Proposals crafted with the goal of keeping firearms out of the wrong hands are proposals I can get behind.

Its not as simple as saying we need to keep them out of the wrong hands. Who are the wrong hands? I believe many vets don't need to carry as a matter of fact. Many people with mental disabilities don't need the weapons but where is the line in saying you can possess one but the other can't. Because in actuality, you're saying you can have a pistol, but this guy shouldn't have one and he is SOL if he is ever attacked. On the other end, I don't believe being a felon at one point automatically disfranchises the person from carrying. Also, Muslim Americans deserve to carry too if the public can. Saying otherwise is discriminatory. There are just so many questions to contemplate that it's hard to make such decisions, but still, it's better than being a brainless NRA sheep.

Who are you to judge whether vets deserve or don't deserve to carry? There are two vets in my house so you say that we can't carry? who gave you that right? Are you aligned with that general who says that vets should get behind him and support a ban? give me a break...I may or may not own a weapon but that still doesn't give you the right to say that I shouldn't carry one...

I said many vets dont need to carry, not all. I personally know a couple vets that are struggling with PTSD in various ways and I dont trust them with weapons. Also, is it not true that roughly 22 vets commit suicide everyday? I never said anything about whether they deserve to carry or whether they dont deserve it. Total misrepresentation of what I said.

I highlighted your words...you never said anything about PTSD or suicide until called out...suicide will happen with or without guns...PTSD is something different as it can be classified as a mental health issue thus they should qualify in a background check...

I didn't think I needed to mention in bulletproof form why i would not want some vets to have weapons. I thought it was obvious.

[cole256 17,085]

" A hand gun, self-defense ... whatever, fine. But these military style weapons need to be banned."

Wrong. They don't.

Ok, so what's your suggestion to keep these out of the hands of any nut job who wants to walk into a crowded space and open fire?

I don't think that there is a real answer to that question. No matter the weapon, all one needs is the willingness to trade one's life for another. If you ban assault rifles, people will be able to find them on the black market and those that undedstand and know how the black market work aren't the ones looking for collection pieces. Just like prohibition, some group will fill the vacuum left behind.

We could say things about drugs but they still have laws against them, could we not?

apples and oranges...nice try though

Who was talking to you? And what it's apples and oranges just because you say so? Gtho

[aubearcat 2,153]

Hey Row34, are you "Don from HYT"?

[Strychnine 1,808]

Either. And the buyback wouldn't necessarily have to be for their original value, but some discounted value according to how long they have been owned. Considering the amount we already spend on security, I don't think that's unreasonable.

And I don't have a problem with allowing qualified hobbyists to retain such weapons provided they undergo an appropriate background check, register the weapons, and be held responsible if one of them goes missing. (I'm just thinking out loud here.)

I agree with your last paragraph. The commercial retail displays of military weapons in virtually every gun shop is obscene.

Personally, I think that all firearm purchases should undergo more stringent background checks (IE licensing) and that all weapons should be registered. I cannot get behind holding people responsible for what happens when a weapon goes missing, unless they did not report it missing. I do not make a distinction between assault weapons and any other firearms, because I do not believe one is warranted. I think firearms in general are too easy to obtain. That same shooter could have done plenty of damage in that setting with a pair of Glock 17's.

I do need to make my thoughts on background checks clear: I support a license system that has an application process. When you apply for a firearms license, an exhaustive background check should occur. That check should start with both criminal convictions and arrest records in all 50 states. An application that has arrests for domestic violence, or has had restraining orders filed against them, or has been committed for mental evaluation requires actual human followup. Interviews of family, coworkers, and acquaintances should occur. The same should occur for anyone that is or was on any terrorism related list, or that agencies have had terrorism-related interest in. I like the license system because it makes the issue of whether any firearms are legally possessed, or whether you can purchase one, very easy to ascertain. I would say the license should be renewed annually.

As for the retail displays of assault weapons, AR-15's are the popular choice for the tacticool / mall ninja crowd. The entry level ones are not expensive, and there are all sorts of accessories available. You are just not cool unless you show up at the range with an AR decked out with an EOTech holo and magnifier, foregrip of some kind, laser, tactical flashlight, chest rig, and 3-point sling.

I don't disagree with anything you said here, but I'll play devil's advocate.

Would charging for a license, effectively prohibit some from exercising a right? Does it create more of a black market for illegal weapons? These are just questions that popped into my head when I looked at it from the other side.

I see no reason for the license to be expensive, or for it to cost anything really. Given the amount of money the government wastes on all manners of things (especially military programs), I would be fine with them covering the cost of developing and operating a more effective system to ensure more comprehensive background checks of people purchasing firearms. That said, we have accepted prohibiting some from exercising a right in the case of firearms, as more than simply convicted felons are already not allowed to purchase firearms.

[RunInRed 18,113]

[AUUSN 823]

[homersapien 12,172]

Raptor - But you didn't answer my question, what would calling them that specific phrase achieve?

I DID answer your question. That ' specific phrase ' is simply who they are.

Why are you making this more difficult than it isn't ? Because there's nothing remotely difficult at all about it. You're just swallowing the administration's kool-aid on this matter. Literally spewing out their words,damn near verbatim.

Kinda of hard to justify the obsession, huh?

[homersapien 12,172]

Damn, you exploded my 'Irony Alarm' again.

They just don't make these things strong enough. I need a Raptor-strength version.

Stupid and vapid post. Again, from Homer.

I wasn't mean't for you to appreciate, DA.

[homersapien 12,172]

stay away from some of us who want to own AR-15's or other guns...you fail to blame the cause of why this happened. I didn't read anyone yell about fertilizer after the ok city bombing....and those calling people dumb because we don't agree with you wanting to ban weapons, you should look in the mirror. There is a radicalization going on in this country in the mosques being lead by wabbisim of the islamic religion whether you believe it or not. Some of our so called leaders have been brainwashed to be so PC that they refuse to call it out. There have been many links over the years to the brotherhood, etc that preach this kind of hate but some of you blame the guns...there are probably over 3 million of the ARs in this country that are owned by mostly law abiding citizens but when something like this happens some of you loose your minds and blame the gun....well someone has to pull the trigger and with that some of these killers are either deranged or they follow a certain type of fanatical religion. If you have ever spent time in certain parts of the world or even opened your eyes to it you would see it. Most on this board haven't spent much time with the locals in the middle east where this comes from. You would be thinking differently if you had and listened to some of what is being said over there...there are too many people out there that hate out of religion...that is the problem...corrupt religion is the main culprit and that isn't what is being called out in most of these cases....why? who the heck knows unless it is people who don't want to be offensive or be perceived as offensive...that is our problem...

We aren't "blaming the gun" :-\/> We are blaming a culture and legal system that makes is so easy for terrorists and/or crazy people to acquire military grade weaponry.

https://www.washingt...om-buying-guns/

http://america.aljaz...watchlists.html

Don't forget the government programs like the fast and furious that give them out like Halloween candy

Apparently you don't understand the distinction between a ****-up and policy.

[homersapien 12,172]

stay away from some of us who want to own AR-15's or other guns...you fail to blame the cause of why this happened. I didn't read anyone yell about fertilizer after the ok city bombing....and those calling people dumb because we don't agree with you wanting to ban weapons, you should look in the mirror. There is a radicalization going on in this country in the mosques being lead by wabbisim of the islamic religion whether you believe it or not. Some of our so called leaders have been brainwashed to be so PC that they refuse to call it out. There have been many links over the years to the brotherhood, etc that preach this kind of hate but some of you blame the guns...there are probably over 3 million of the ARs in this country that are owned by mostly law abiding citizens but when something like this happens some of you loose your minds and blame the gun....well someone has to pull the trigger and with that some of these killers are either deranged or they follow a certain type of fanatical religion. If you have ever spent time in certain parts of the world or even opened your eyes to it you would see it. Most on this board haven't spent much time with the locals in the middle east where this comes from. You would be thinking differently if you had and listened to some of what is being said over there...there are too many people out there that hate out of religion...that is the problem...corrupt religion is the main culprit and that isn't what is being called out in most of these cases....why? who the heck knows unless it is people who don't want to be offensive or be perceived as offensive...that is our problem...

We aren't "blaming the gun" :-\ We are blaming a culture and legal system that makes is so easy for terrorists and/or crazy people to acquire military grade weaponry.

https://www.washingt...om-buying-guns/

http://america.aljaz...watchlists.html

BS the first thing you do is call for a ban on types of guns...you don't see the real problem...the gun used in the shootings didn't pull it's own trigger...there is a larger problem here that people like you don't want to admit too...there is a group that is out there that wants to cause terror....if this was a biker gang you would be all right with putting them under surveillance but there are known radical imams in this country preaching hate and you may have a problem with it and some of these same ones are calling for people to kill Jews, Gays, etc but you have a fear of putting these guys under surveillance and seeing who they are preaching to and thus taking a hard look at those folks?

The King of Jordan and the head of Egypt said the same thing that some are corrupting their religion and doing these acts of violence but yet some on this board are only talking about banning guns and saying oh, we investigated this guy 2 times. but yet when the state dept called off looking at the radicals imams we heard nothing from any of you....but you are still ok with this admin who doesn't want to offend anyone but folks who believe in the constitution...

Do you want to discuss why we shouldn't allow for it to be so easy for potential mass shooter to obtain assault rifles, or do you want to discuss immigration?

I'll do either but not in the same post.

Meanwhile, please show me where I called for "a ban on types of guns" as your first sentence states. Was that inadvertent or are you being a lyin' weasel?

So, I respond to your "BS" with !

[homersapien 12,172]

In all this talk about banning sporting rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever you want to call them, no one has mentioned how to enact such a ban. My three NFA weapons (automatic) are worth over $100,000. My collection of semi-auto AK-47's and AR-15's is probably worth over $10,000. Does anyone think I am just going to hand those over for little or no compensation? Do the millions of currently owned AR-15's get grandfathered?

Conservatives are never going to vote for the cost of buying all of these banned rifles. No owner of any of these rifles will ever support a ban that does not include appropriate compensation or grandfathering (if you can get them to support a ban at all). The NRA, and all gun advocacy groups, will fight it tooth and nail. Instead of concentrating on irrational knee-jerk proposals to ban firearms that millions of people own and use without incident, why not concentrate on proposals that might actually be able to gain traction with people like me?

The bottom line to me is that the type of firearms this killer used are ultimately irrelevant. The important thing is that he had no business possessing a firearm of any type, whether it be an AR-15 or a single-shot .22LR. I do not want such people to possess an AR-15, or a Glock 17, or a shotgun. Why don't we concentrate on that? Proposals crafted with the goal of keeping firearms out of the wrong hands are proposals I can get behind.

Its not as simple as saying we need to keep them out of the wrong hands. Who are the wrong hands? I believe many vets don't need to carry as a matter of fact. Many people with mental disabilities don't need the weapons but where is the line in saying you can possess one but the other can't. Because in actuality, you're saying you can have a pistol, but this guy shouldn't have one and he is SOL if he is ever attacked. On the other end, I don't believe being a felon at one point automatically disfranchises the person from carrying. Also, Muslim Americans deserve to carry too if the public can. Saying otherwise is discriminatory. There are just so many questions to contemplate that it's hard to make such decisions, but still, it's better than being a brainless NRA sheep.

Who are you to judge whether vets deserve or don't deserve to carry? There are two vets in my house so you say that we can't carry? who gave you that right? Are you aligned with that general who says that vets should get behind him and support a ban? give me a break...I may or may not own a weapon but that still doesn't give you the right to say that I shouldn't carry one...

I said many vets dont need to carry, not all. I personally know a couple vets that are struggling with PTSD in various ways and I dont trust them with weapons. Also, is it not true that roughly 22 vets commit suicide everyday? I never said anything about whether they deserve to carry or whether they dont deserve it. Total misrepresentation of what I said.

I highlighted your words...you never said anything about PTSD or suicide until called out...suicide will happen with or without guns...PTSD is something different as it can be classified as a mental health issue thus they should qualify in a background check...

His explanation wasn't enough? As I recall, Jeff is a vet.

You seem to have some anger issues or maybe paranoia.

Ironic, huh?