And my point is this. How could you possibly ban the features of an AR-15 without banning semi-automatic hunting rifles? They are exactly the same as a semi-automatic hunting rifle. I guess that's maybe where we should start. These people don't understand that AR-15 is no more dangerous than nearly every hunting rifle in the country. It's no more dangerous than most handguns sold today. They either don't understand that or they are being dishonest in their implication. *Edit* And then we have to consider that fully automatic weapons are easier to make than semi-automatic weapons. If we were to ban all semi-automatic weapons there would be huge demand on the black market for weapons that can fire quickly without having to reload or re-cock. The black market would be primed for automatic weapons. Why would they ever even make semi-auto if they aren't legal? It would be far more efficient for a black market weapons manufacturer to just manufacturing fully automatic machine guns. In fact, if the guy who shot at Donald Trump had been using a semi-automatic 30-06, Trump is probably not alive today or at least I bet he'd be unable to run for president.
How do you deal with cases where the person has just been declared dangerous and/or a felon? You can force them to get a new license, but they could just say they lost their old one, and then use that to buy guns. barfo
It takes a certain level of stupidity to believe that Harris wouldn’t run circles around Donna on an intellectual level. Don’t dodge the debate Donna!
If they can't provide a current, valid (and unrestricted) ID then they can't buy the firearm. At point of sale they would be able to search the database for that ID number to verify that the ID is current, valid, and unrestricted. Also, I (as a police officer) would probably take the person's ID and hole punch it over the restricted area. To invalidate that specific ID card. Or maybe just confiscate it altogether.
Ah, so every gun purchaser would be checked against a database. OK. That seems like putting the punishment cart before the due process horse. barfo
Not just gun purchasers. This could (and certainly would) be used for many other reasons as well. And not a database of gun owners. A database of people with valid identification. Which also determines if people are dangerous. And this database would be free. You wouldn't have to pay more money to have it checked. And it would be instant. What punishment? If they are found to be nonviolent, non-dangerous, and worthy of no restrictions then they'll have an updated ID mailed to them for free, or they can go pick it up at a local DMV. There is no additional punishment beyond what already happens.
I think that the terminologies that are being used may not be fully understood. People who talk about banning semi-automatic weapons may be thinking of weapons that fire continuously like a fully automatic or machine gun type weapons. I agree that there needs to be much more education and discussion about the subject to find solutions to the tragic mass shootings this country has seen over the years.
Yes, I think that misunderstanding is probably likely. So then, you have to take the next step and understand that fully automatic weapons are already banned. And virtually no crime is ever committed with those kind of weapons in this country. So then what is the point of the talk of "assault weapons" bans? This brings me back to my point, that they are either being dishonest or displaying their ignorance. Either of which is going to cost them votes against Trump and completely goes against their portrayal of themselves as being more educated, trustworthy, and for the people.
I personally have no problem with this, but there's a rather large fraction of the citizenry who will strongly object, because they are convinced that government is evil and spying on them and plotting to take their guns and their SUVs and a fraction of their pay. You are giving the police powers they don't currently have. Currently, a cop can't unilaterally decide that someone shouldn't be able to buy guns. Again, I don't object myself, but a lot of people will. barfo
There are no new databases created here. There are no new restrictions here. Felons are already prohibited from buying firearms. The people you're talking about tend to want felons and criminals punished more harshly and prevented from getting access to guns. So while I agree with some of your statements here, I disagree with the overall premise. Yes, police can absolutely confiscate your ID if they believe it is fake or can be used in a harmful way in many states. Like Florida, for instance. I don't know every state's laws. If they determine you to be too dangerous to buy guns they could absolutely take your ID or prevent you from even entering your own home temporarily if you're deemed a threat to somebody inside. Or that you entering may even lead to a problem. Even without arresting you. Police absolutely have the power to temporarily remove your rights. 100% *Edit* I would advocate for language to be added that specifies how and when this should happen.
Not as funny as getting excited over a guy who doesn't do press conferences to explain his non-existent or impractical platform, raped women, is a felon, tried to overthrow the government, turned his assassination attempt into a grift and wanders off talking about sharks and batteries.
My condition (being trans) has as recently as 2016 been labeled a mental illness, and is still targeted to be marked as such again. I’m sure a database of dangerous people won’t be used politically against marginalized people who often skew left of the parties in charge. (Daily reminder that gun control started to be a thing because of the black panthers who were communist and armed for their own safety)
Unless you're legally marked as a felon or dangerous person you wouldn't be restricted. I'm not talking about creating any new database. In fact, I'm opposed to it. This database already exists or we'd never know who is a felon. As I've mentioned before (though not specifically in this thread), I would also advocate that there be a court or process created to less expensively get people off of this list who are wrongly added to it. This would also include the no-fly lists that it seems many people have been wrongly added to. This would also help garner the support of Republicans and libertarians. *Edit* And, once again, Democrats could have codified protections multiple times in the last 15 to 20 years. They have chosen not to do so.
The Affordable Care Act was a good first step - Especially that Insurance Companies can no longer exclude pre existing conditions. Still have a long way to go but I think lowering the Medicare age is a good next step. The Republican platform calls for reducing funding for Social Security as well as Medicare/Medicaid.
I'm not sure what else you want me to say. I think Democrats should do a better job of protecting people who don't harm others in general. It should be codified in the Constitution. They had the presidency and congress multiple times in the last 20 years. When Republicans had that power they used it. Democrats tend to make excuses. I would not support a policy that would allow the kind of persecution you're referring to. But any restriction could be expanded to impact anybody. Are you advocating for no restrictions at all?
