Should citizens in the United States be banned from possessing assault weapons?

[gejoslin]

Yes, people with a criminal history apply for permits. For many years I ran Triple I checks for a multitude of reasons and one of those reasons was for concealed weapon permits. You don't need a permit to OC in Maine btw. But anyways, people got denied due to a bad history....thanks to DUE PROCESS and a USEFUL permit system. So lawful concealment is denied to those who can't follow the rules of the adult world...and you claim they should? What's the justification for lawful carry if they have a criminal history? The permit system ensures a lot of things. Does it prevent violent crime? Never said it did and I don't believe it does anyways. But you continue to assert opinions, I have factual information. Baseless opinions forced upon others is typically a hallmark of an elitist btw.

The permit system is useless. You say that criminals and felons were denied permits. So what. They stilled carried anyway. The permit system only works for law abiding citizens. It's a feel good law that makes the gun control lobby feel like they made a difference. We know that felons and career criminals will do it anyway.
It only keeps them from buying new weapons from Gun stores.The permit system only allows people like me (law abiding) to carry. I wouldn't carry outside the house other wise. (no open carry here in AR) And of course there's the Gun training class, the Permit fees. Things that they don't pay.
So I guess I just don't get it. Useful? To me, yeah. But it does not stop crime or keep guns out of law breakers hands.
Just two days ago, the Pawn Shop was broken into and all their handguns were stolen. I'm pretty sure they wont be sold or given to CCL holders.
But this is my opinion.
And I'm sticking to it.

 

[Deserteagle]

Yes, people with a criminal history apply for permits. For many years I ran Triple I checks for a multitude of reasons and one of those reasons was for concealed weapon permits. You don't need a permit to OC in Maine btw. But anyways, people got denied due to a bad history....thanks to DUE PROCESS and a USEFUL permit system. So lawful concealment is denied to those who can't follow the rules of the adult world...and you claim they should? What's the justification for lawful carry if they have a criminal history? The permit system ensures a lot of things. Does it prevent violent crime? Never said it did and I don't believe it does anyways. But you continue to assert opinions, I have factual information. Baseless opinions forced upon others is typically a hallmark of an elitist btw.

The impression I get from this post is that you believe gun laws work. But they dont. Criminals will carry the gun they want, where they want, regardless of what the law says.

 

[nofrets1]

We the people... should access to any weapon made available to the military. If we fell under a dictatorship, our opposition would be our own military.

 

[maine04619]

My point is, a Type 01 dealer is still a Type 01 dealer whether they have paid the tax or not. You cannot just pay the Class 3 SOT and be a NFA Title II dealer. You must be an FFL Type 01 to pay the Class 3 SOT tax rate. Just as the manufacturers, even if they don't exceed a certain amount in sales are still paying the Class 2 SOT to sell NFA Title II items but are also allowed to make them too. Same logic applies to Class 1 SOT. An importer can can sell NFA Type II items and so can a manufacturer, if they have paid the SOT for their category. Same items as the Type 01 FFL with a Class 3 SOT stamp. Class 3 SOT is just a tax allowing a Type 01 FFL to sell the items covered by the NFA Title II restrictions. If a Type 01 FFL loses or gives up their FFL, they also lose the Class 3 SOT stamp at the same time. If a Type 01 FFL gives up or fails to pay the Class 3 SOT when due, as long as their FFL is valid, they can still sell guns but no longer can sell the NFA Title II items. Same things apply to the other 2 classes of SOT for NFA Title II items.

Definition of ERRONEOUS
1: containing or characterized by error : mistaken <erroneous assumptions> <gave an erroneous impression>
2:archaic : wandering

 

[maine04619]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nowhere does it say you need a PERMIT!
Nowhere does it say ANYONE can lose the right.
Nowhere does it say WHAT arms.

This like our other rights has been trampled and whittled away bit by bit.

 

[Rhino]

Definition of ERRONEOUS
1: containing or characterized by error : mistaken <erroneous assumptions> <gave an erroneous impression>
2:archaic : wandering

If you want to entertain comments from the peanut gallery, just making wise cracks while he posts lucid arguments isn't winning you the battle at all.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Yup, it is. Glad we agree on something.

As for the rest, do you actually believe someone who has been convicted of a crime worthy of their rights being taken away, will apply for a permit?

What will said criminal do after they are denied?

What if the criminal doesn't apply for a permit?

What if the criminal lives in a state with no permit system?

They will get a firearm anyways and carry it. So what exactly did the permit system do? Nothing.
What will happen in all the scenarios if the criminal is caught ? The exact same thing, unlawful possession of a firearm, which had nothing to do with the permit system, nor did the permit system ensure anything.

Due process = constitutional. Useful.

Permit system = useless infringement.

But hey, at least you aren't denying your elitist point of view anymore.

Yes, people with a criminal history apply for permits. For many years I ran Triple I checks for a multitude of reasons and one of those reasons was for concealed weapon permits. You don't need a permit to OC in Maine btw. But anyways, people got denied due to a bad history....thanks to DUE PROCESS and a USEFUL permit system. So lawful concealment is denied to those who can't follow the rules of the adult world...and you claim they should? What's the justification for lawful carry if they have a criminal history? The permit system ensures a lot of things. Does it prevent violent crime? Never said it did and I don't believe it does anyways. But you continue to assert opinions, I have factual information. Baseless opinions forced upon others is typically a hallmark of an elitist btw.

Factual information that when you denied people they didn't carry afterwards? Lol

Maybe the other members can talk some sense into you, you apparently are oblivious to my points.. couldn't even answer more than one of my questions.

 

[S&W645]

Wouldn't the submarines be a lot more fun?

Definitely harder to target, that's for sure. Wouldn't you rather have been part of the 4062nd Mobile Missile Wing Nightmare? And yes, Ive seen the Command and Control car for the test train.

 

[Rhino]

At least they didn't have the CND protesters we had for the cruise missles in England. They could barely leave the base sometimes.

 

[longslide10]

Sturmgewehr. The name was chosen for propaganda reasons and literally means "storm rifle" as in "to storm (i.e. "assault") an enemy position". After the adoption of the StG 44, the English translation "assault rifle" became the accepted designation for this type of infantry small arm. And just like Nazi Germany the anti-gunners here use it for effect to scare the sheeple.

 

[k9ontheway]

Absolutely not. "Assault" implies intent, such as in a case of "AWADWISI".

I can kill a man with a calculus book, a Bic pen, a dish rag, my truck, a brick, etc.

You don't see anyone banning pens and steak knives, but it's ok to ban an "assault weapon". ********.

If "We The People" need to "rise again", "assault weapons" will likely be one of the main tools used... and that, my friends, is what TPTB are afraid of. An armed populace is much much harder to control.

 

[titon]

your MOTHER committed felonies. Kissing someone under the age of 18 is a felony. Oral sex, even between spouses, was a felony in at least one state, until recently. There's thousands more felonies than you are aware of, and very few of them are any reason at all to render that person unable to properly defend himself. It's just like abortion or dope. NOBODY has any right to tell another adult what they can put into or take out of their own bodies, and if the "felon" has not harmed anyone, why should they be rendered helpless. that felon can and probably will, be YOU some day, when they outlaw gun possession, for instance. unless you are a sheeple, which is highly probable, actually, and you just knuckle under to big brother.

 

[Deserteagle]

your MOTHER committed felonies. Kissing someone under the age of 18 is a felony.

I would just love to see where you got this from.....

 

[Rhino]

So would I.
.
Extraneous text added because the forum software demands it.

 

[jg1967]

Sturmgewehr. The name was chosen for propaganda reasons and literally means "storm rifle" as in "to storm (i.e. "assault") an enemy position". After the adoption of the StG 44, the English translation "assault rifle" became the accepted designation for this type of infantry small arm. And just like Nazi Germany the anti-gunners here use it for effect to scare the sheeple.

The assault rifle has become an accepted technical term in firearms cicles, the assault weapon however has not.

 

[SFC]

According to the state of the PRK and style of firearm that is made for the Military is an Assault Weapon, but then again Kalifornia has not been correct on 90% or higher on their assessment of just what is an Assault Weapon or Sniper Rifle. The Federal Government is not much better, like this statement:

Claim: The federal "assault weapon" ban "was effective" in reducing crime.

"Assault weapons" have never been used in more than a small percentage of crime. Furthermore, firearm-related and non-firearm related crime were decreasing before the ban was imposed and have continued to decrease since the ban expired, all for reasons unrelated to gun control.

Now that is clear as mud, According to Kalifornia's (Penal Code section 12276, subds (a), (b), and (c)) The following designated semiautomatic firearms are assault weapons:

All of the following specified rifles:
All AK series including, but not limited to, the models identified as follows:
Made in China AK, AKM, AKS, AK47, AK47S, 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S.

According to their (Penal Code sections 12276 (e) and (f)). can be located at Link Removed

Their third and last is (PC section 12276.1, SB 23) is here: Senate Bill 23 Assault Weapon Characteristics | State of California - Department of Justice - Kamala D. Harris Attorney General

Since Kalifornia is the leader in firearm bans the FBI has yet to come out with the description of an Assault. Is there anyone that can explain other than the PRK describe just Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!!!!! is the federal regulation on an Assault Weapon? The answer is simply NO. Why? The Federal Government would be cutting their own throats by doing so, as once they describe the Assault Weapon means they, themselves could not carry the described Assault Weapon. This was found in the PRK LiveLeak.com - Retired CA cops can't own 'assault weapons/Deputy denied permit/Vietnam vet denied-FBI threatens confiscation

Of course as usual everything written, reported, or from such places like Harvard Law do nothing but run you in circles never describing the an actual Assault Weapon. In the eyes of the PRK; ban all firearms. Yes but then their crime rate depending on which one report you read and believe in the PRK rates anywhere from one of the highest to one of the lowest. There is one report that has gun ownership by country, yep, the US out does them all with 270 Million Registered gun owners. I'm wondering where they were during this past election. According to the NRA there are approximately 130 million registered gun owners in the US.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

I hope this image can be used to clarify the term "assault weapon" as it is reported by the media.....
Link Removed

 

[gejoslin]

I hope this image can be used to clarify the term "assault weapon" as it is reported by the media.....
Link Removed

Hey!? I got more AK-47's than I thought!:sarcastic:

Y'all have a great Saturday!

 

[titon]

It's not a quote. Look in the statures of your own state. Kissing or "fondling" of an underage minor is a felony, in MANY states.

 

[Firefighterchen]

It's not a quote. Look in the statures of your own state. Kissing or "fondling" of an underage minor is a felony, in MANY states.

When I was 15 years old, I kissed my 15 year old girlfriend, and that was not a felony...but in your case, yes a 30 year old kissing a 15 year old is...there is a difference in those situations, I hope you can tell the difference. Maybe your mom can explain it to you, unless of course she to committed child molestation and you can no longer visit that felon...