The nonsense posted above by MCG aside, why not standardize federal gun laws in every state? Use NJ as your model because our gun laws are very tough and the process to obtain a permit is very lengthy. Make that the minimum standard. If the states individually want to make their laws even tougher, then go for it. No civilian needs an AR. We have no real use for them and most people that own them fail to secure them and really do not know how to use them properly.
Ummm George, I assume you don't own an AR, or know anyone who does. I own both an AR15, and and AR10. Do you "need" a car? I "need" these rifles because I use both to hunt Hogs. They are light weight, accurate, and reasonably priced. If you've never trudged around in the dark, looking for a pack of hogs that will eat you if they can, you wouldn't understand how useful this rifle is. And let me also refute your assertion that they are generally not secured. I have all my guns locked in a gun cabinet, and the keys are not marked so if the anyone ever did find where they are hidden, they still wouldn't know what they are for. I am not alone in this. EVERY ONE of my friends who owns guns secures their weapons under lock and key.
I saw and heard Gov. Scott's interview George and again he said it 3 months ago before last week happened..... what he said during it was incredible nonsense.
Scott, I do not own an AR. My son does. He is a qualified marksman in both the USAF and the NJ State Police. He is selling his AR because he does not feel he needs it for any reason, particularly given the rash of horrible massacres involving them. He said he bought it because it was trendy a now he views it differently. We don't have hogs to any degree around here and there is no compelling reason to own an AR in NJ. I do not own any guns at present. I use to own handguns and was very proficient with them. Getting rid of them was a personal choice. It is good to know that you are a responsible owner.
Here's some nonsense for ya: https://www.snopes.com/trump-sign-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-illnesses/ Between Rick Scott "praying" for prevention and Donald Trump making it easier for the mentally ill to buy weapons because his fragile ego has always been threatened by anything Obama there is some real.... acute sickening nonsense.
Having one because it's trendy... I would agree is not a compelling reason. I think my question now would be: Let's say that we get enough consensus to say "no more AR" rifles to the general public. What do you do about the millions already out there? Saying you'll buy back a $1500 rifle for $200 ain't gonna work.
I'm not here to pass judgement, Scott. Or to threaten your guns. I'm just saying that these weapons in the wrong hands are capable of incredible mayhem. When a 64 year old man who has been drinking and drugging for days can shoot hundreds of people in 9 minutes from 400 yards away or a 19 year old mental midget can shoot and kill 17 people in six minutes, it gives many like myself cause for concern. Either the gun ownership laws must be severely tightened or access to these type of weapons must be severely prohibited. Or we place a detachment of armed personnel at every school and hope for the best. I'm a conservative 2nd amendment supporter. But I think we need to remember that in 1791 we were guaranteeing access to single shot powder and ball muzzle loaders. Times change and so do people... both good and bad.
No worries George... I haven't been threatened by anything said here. Was just passing along some info to give insight into a different view. I fully understand what you mean, and your reasoning is sound even if I don't agree with all the proposals. The hard part is figuring out how to make a plan work. Restrictions are only as good as the info used to set parameters. As Corey already noted... we have ZERO systems in place to have knowledge of who is mentally fit and who is not. Even when we do have the info, the system relies on people doing their jobs... which we've seen is becoming a rare thing allowing perpetrators to slip through. I'm open to solutions... even those that might be restrictive, but they must be fully reasoned and the costs and collateral effects must be addressed as well.
(Sigh) All I asked was for us to use true facts in discussion. Both articles you guys linked to completely ignore that the ACLU and mental health and disability advocates (some of many of them) were opposed to that regulation. They and the NRA went through congress to overturn the legislation. Yes, Trump signed it. And the article that you linked to, Corey, quoted Everytown...Bloomberg's group that lied so blatently about mass shootings and school shootings that Snopes found fault with the way they presented "facts" that were parroted by Bernie Sanders and much of the media. The Washington post even called it "flat wrong." My understanding is that most if not all of the individuals who would be subject to the legislation did not pose any credible threat to themselves or others. They were on SS disability and maybe being prescribed SSRI medication...heck, some of them only had eating disorders...yet they would have fallen under the categories reported to the FBI. Even now, after that was revoked, there is nothing keeping them from being adjudicated as a danger if somebody deems them so and goes through the proper legal motions...and they go on the list. SSRI's are among the most prescribed drugs in America. I would venture that everybody on this board has a close family member taking one. Do we then require psychiatrists to report all patients receiving them to the FBI? Then do we go with family doctors? Is it your contention that the guy who has sexualized fantasies about going to the mall and shooting all the women and children cannot be adjucated as a danger to himself and others and put on the list? That because Trump signed that bill he cannot be put on the list? That goes against my understanding of this issue. We can be legitimately opposed to his revoking that rule, but can we not discuss it truthfully and look at why some groups opposed it" The no fly list was a debacle...maybe necessary in airports but so many folks ended up on it purely by mistake...and could not get off it. And Homeland Security refused to correct the problem...even after it was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. If the problem has been fixed then I would submit that these people should indeed be on a list to fail a background check. It may indeed be that no citizen needs an AR-15. But I would remind everyone of the hell that Koreatown in Los Angeles went through during the Rodney King riots when they were left to fend for themselves (while police defense lines were set up for Beverly Hills and West Hollywood) and people were murdered and shopkeepers and Korean families defended themselves with shotguns, M-1's, and Ruger Mini-14's, which are similar to the AR. I'm sure Jo'Co and Corey know more about that than I do, so maybe I'm wrong. Also I would remind folks that the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people using a .22 and a 9mm handgun. He was another one who fell through the mental health cracks. (Not because of Social Security disability). He should have been reported many times. I think that magazine capacity is a legitimate topic of discussion. 5 seems a little low. I don't know how many rounds this guy fired, nor how many times he reloaded. I do know based on one student's interview, that he reloaded at least once. I think that it's legitimate to discuss trying to harden the soft targets of schools, malls, theatres, and churches...but not if you're going to write it off as "changing our schools into prisons". And it's hard to discuss anything with a guy who blames everything bad that ever happened on Trump and Scott. At least he seems to have graduated from Bush. BTW I read today that Trump is supportive of trying to strengthen the NICS checks. Done here. These fruitcakes pull this **** and all we do is blame each other.
I think all of us agree that people with mental disturbances should not be allowed to get within 100 yards of a gun....period. Whatever it takes. No matter who opposes it! And most especially that goes for anyone who could harm themselves. It's ironic that in Florida if you publicly threaten to kill yourself the police will come nab your ass in short order and lock you up in a mental ward for 4 days but our Gov. Rick Scott would support that you own a gun to just end it all quickly and avoid such hassle. Otherwise the 2nd amendment as George says is the umbrella argument for why AR 15s and similar weapons should be allowed and you just cannot overlook the significance of what George is saying.....in 1791 guns were obviously vastly... vastly different and not capable of the mass destruction that we see so frequently today in the U.S.
I would opine that those Koreans kinda sorta were a militia. And what they did was kinda sorta what the 2nd amendment was all about.
Keep in mind the reason the Founding Fathers added the 2nd amendment. They absolutely did not trust the government, and made as many checks on it as they could. The ultimate balance is the 2nd amendment. The right of the people to bear arms... against their government if necessary. That would require the militia to have weapon tech equal to that of the government... I'm not arguing for us to have mini-guns and grenades, but the technology of then vs now isn't relevant with respect to the bill of rights.
Technology isn't relevant? Didn't the repeating rifle facilitate the takeover of this country? And the gatling gun etched it in stone. We have far more to fear from one another than we do from ISIS, marauding foreign armies or our own government. All I want to know is that my 9 and 6 year old grandsons can go to school safely without fear of some asshole with a grudge shooting up the place with daddy's gun and a box of ammo.
Yes it is...there are and should be limits. But the residents of Koreatown probably were glad they had more than flintlocks. Not so sure about ISIS. Any talk about fighting our government would seem silly...don't think I'd wanna take on an Abrams tank with an AR. We have been incredibly blessed with a stable government run by the people. But I worry at how split into two factions those people are becoming...aided by foreign trolls, no less. Where is this going to lead us? Our government seems paralyzed, but could it be destabilized?
And a loose cannon for a president who benefitted from those trolls and may have aided and abetted those trolls. Otherwise I agree that the first thought that springs to mind is that there is about a zero chance the majority of the American populace.... except maybe for lunatic fringe groups ( like Fox News and Breitbart disciples..lol) ...... needs to worry about taking on the US military's jets and tanks.... etc. The argument for assualt rifles being a basic need of the American people is a hollow.... jaded argument.
For Christ's sake, Dave. It was the Hollywood celebrities and all the BLM / Me Too style groups that were at the Protests and rallies. Do you really think anyone voted for Trump because of Russian involvement. Face it man, you had a shitty, lifeless candidate with no platform. She inspired no one and appeared tired, sick, drunk or drugged throughout most of the campaign. She was such an empty pantsuit that she had two challengers in her own party. She colluded with the DNC to finish Sanders off. She then tried to rig the general election with the FBI and the Justice Dept. You are smart guy... doing I really have to draw you a picture ?
Amazing isn't it, the same stupid ******* morons who believed the fake news polls that Hillary was going to win in a landslide now believe the fake news stories about the Russians influencing the election. For months we heard about the Russians "HACKING THE ELECTION." We now have Mueller's newest waste of time indictments that don't mention "hacking" at all. It's one thing to be gullible and stupid but to be stubbornly delusional is hard to understand. The main purpose of the Russian "meddling" was to sow dissension among the American population. To do that they organized demonstrations like the NOT MY PRESIDENT rally in NYC. And who was there colluding with the Russians? Why the American media giving ad nausea coverage to the demonstration as though it was a real protest.
'She then tried to rig the general election with the FBI and the Justice Dept' She did? You mean for her to lose? You mean the FBI's big newstory about a release of new emails a few days before the election had nothing to do with the election outcome?
Pretty decent account of the Clinton failure: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-interference-affect-the-2016-election/
Why did Comey make the announcement when he did? He'd already given her a pass on her crimes. He wasn't going to sit on news of the new evidence to show what a political hack he really was.