Alright, how about stuff that was designed to kill things such as the bow and arrow? The bow and arrow was designed to kill things so should it be banned?
Lots of guns have many safety features too, they've got safeties that have to be deactivated for the gun to be fired and there's some guns that need a magazine in it to fire. With some guns, even if you have a round in the chamber, if you don't have a magazine in the gun it won't fire, so guns have safety features too.
I say lets not make it possible for them to rack up any carnage numbers, they should be put away the moment we realize there's something wrong with them.
What do you mean by high capacity? If you're talking about 40 round magazines that is not high capacity that is standard capacity. The gun typically comes with a magazine that size. High capacity would be your 100 round drums and I don't use or recommend those as they are way too prone to malfunctions.
They are not war style, for them to be war style they would have to be full automatics. Instead they're semi automatics just like most hunting rifles. Particularly if you're hunting medium or large game you will often need a quick follow up shot so most hunting rifles are semi automatics.
Hunting, target shooting, self denense.
Only if you drive them on public roads, the licensing and registration is for use of the road more than it is for use and ownership of the car.
Again, that has to do if you're going to drive the car on public roads, so it has to do with use of the road not use and ownership of the car.
Because you're endangering people and putting them at significant risk, just because you might be lucky enough, and they might be lucky enough, that you don't hit anybody, doesn't mean you should do it.
It does when you're endangering innocent people. If you want to drive fast, go to a racetrack.
No it doesn't. You only have to register it if you're driving it from the dealership (as that would involve driving it on public roads.) You can buy a car, have it toed to your house, and only drive it on your own property without having it registered. This is particularly common for people who live on farms and where the license plate would be on such cars instead there would be a sign saying, "farm use only."
Whether or not a gun in the home puts the people in your home at risk depends on the person who's keeping the gun in their home.
Assault is a credible threat to inflict harm.
People don't have any difficulty determining what gender I am.
No one can provide any other alternative motivation for violating people's civil liberties.
The fact that no one can provide any other possible motivation for violating people's civil liberties is evidence that my proposed motivation is the true one.
No they aren't. That is only required for driving on public roads.
As above, only if they are driven on public roads.
Setting aside the fact that you don't have a right to do that (whereas people do have a right to have ordinary hunting rifles like the AR-15), those activities are actually dangerous (whereas choosing an AR-15 for a hunting rifle poses no danger to anyone).
No they don't. Not if they will not be driven on public roads.
Having a bathtub in your home puts people in your home at risk.
That is incorrect. The NRA does not make it easier to commit mass murder. Again, gun control is not even about trying to stop murders.
The gun control movement does not try to do anything about mass murders either. I guess they are complicit as well.
No one has ever used a weapon of war to harm children in the US.Why, make it easy for them to get a high capacity magazine war-type weapon to mow down children with ease, of course!
That is incorrect. Facts and reality are not BS. Ordinary hunting rifles like the AR-15 are not weapons of war.
No they aren't.
Limitations that make them nothing like a weapon of war.
That is the nature of a hunting rifle. Shotguns too for that matter.
Again, no one has ever used a weapon of war to harm children in the US.
Allowing people to choose their preferred brand of hunting rifle does nothing to make killing easier.
We're not serfs and you are not our lord. You have no say over what brand of gun we have. We will decide that for ourselves.
Interesting trivia.
Letting people choose their preferred brand of hunting rifle does nothing to make carnage easier.
We're not serfs and you are not our lord. You have no say over what brand of gun we have. We will decide that for ourselves.
Some people weigh the risks and benefits and choose to have guns. They have an express right to do so.
LOL, it doesn't even keep the same people from doing the same thing when they get out. Like right away,
That actually poses a danger to the public.
I actually kind of side with the far left on immigration.
As a gun owner who owns a couple of AR's, I disagree we shouldn't ban them, it makes as much sense as banning every semi-auto rifle, which will never happen. What I agree with is the effort to ban 'assault weapons', defined by a detachable magazine capacity over 10 rounds, bump stocks that allow a semi-auto to fire near the rate of machine guns and folding stocks.
No, the NRA and the Republican Party make it harder to commit murder because they reenforce the right for good honest people to defend themselves from would be murderers.
That's why such people should not get out so soon. We need longer sentences, in some cases much longer.
Society has assessed no such thing. Gun control is not about protecting people from danger. It is only about maliciously violating people's civil liberties for no reason.
That's not an either/or proposition. Those are three independent questions.
It does not. The Bill of Rights overrides the wishes of society whenever the two come into conflict.
For the most part, yes.
No. Behavior that is genuinely dangerous can be regulated by society.
Our high poverty areas do indeed have lots of crime.
That is not the definition of assault weapon.
Any gun that can accept a detachable magazine, can accept a detachable magazine of any size. Your proposal would outlaw all guns that can accept detachable magazines.
I am willing to trade "restrictions on bump stocks" for "a repeal of the Hughes Amendment".
There is no justification for outlawing folding stocks. People have the right to have them.
If progressives succeed in replacing the justices who support the Constitution, progressives will then wantonly violate people's civil liberties. That will be bad in the short term.
That is incorrect. Since "outlawing the other features" violates the Second Amendment, doing so is unconstitutional.
People who maliciously violate other people's civil liberties for no reason can be fairly characterized as being evil.
I would say it is more a case of "progressives hating America" than the reverse.
That remains to be seen. It would be better for America if he wins. The left really does hate America and plans to destroy us all.
That has to do with culture not guns because you can get guns in the UK.
Not everybody carries a gun for self defense in the USA.
If the UK has a lower murder rate than the USA it's not because of guns or lack thereof.