A conservative case for an assault weapons ban

[chompalot]

Here's an OP-ED by the conservative judge that sentenced the Tuscon mass murderer Jared Lee Loughner. What I find interesting about this piece is the fact that he calls for the confiscation of the assault rifles and high-capacity magazines that people already possess. In other words, he wants the assault rifle banned reimposed but this time with some teeth to it. I happen to agree with him, I just don't know how it could be done. I guessing we'd just have to impose massive fines on anybody who is found with an assault rifle or extended-magazine.

To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems.

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Gun enthusiasts can still have their venison chili, shoot for sport and competition, and make a home invader flee for his life without pretending they are a part of the SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6774314.story

[gator996]

They've used gun buybacks in other countries and from time-to-time in this country.

[chompalot]

Originally Posted by gator996

They've used gun buybacks in other countries and from time-to-time in this country.

Yes, that's what would have to be done.

[gator996]

Oh, don't be silly chomp...

I can see the NRA commericals now...

"Can they buy your freedom?"
"Don't let them buy your 2nd Ammendment rights"

[chompalot]

I never thought banning the possession of these weapons would be practical (or maybe I should say easy), but if it became law a buy back program would be the fair thing to do.

Even Charles Krauthammer is calling for change.

If we’re serious about curtailing future Columbines and Newtowns, everything — guns, commitment, culture — must be on the table. It’s not hard for President Obama to call out the NRA. But will he call out the ACLU? And will he call out his Hollywood friends?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...029_story.html

[gatorman_07732]

You can not confiscate guns in this country. What exactly makes him a conservative judge, just the fact that he was appointed by George W. Bush?

[chompalot]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

You can not confiscate guns in this country. What exactly makes him a conservative judge, just the fact that he was appointed by George W. Bush?

You can't tell the future. Hopefully, Americans will wake up and rid itself of these tea partiers so that we can get something passed into law that will ban these type of weapons.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by chompalot

You can't tell the future. Hopefully, Americans will wake up and rid itself of these tea partiers so that we can get something passed into law that will ban these type of weapons.

So you admit that the title of your thread is a farce

[chompalot]

That's the title of the op-ed from the conservative judge calling for confiscation of these weapons. It's not a farce.

[chompalot]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

So you admit that the title of your thread is a farce

Nice to see you have a picture of Albert Einstein, a bigtime liberal, as your avatar.

[rpmGator]

The true freedom of America in in the fact it is all backed up by an armed people.

If you want to trade freedom for safety, you will get neither.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by chompalot

Nice to see you have a picture of Albert Einstein, a bigtime liberal, as your avatar.

What does that have to do with anything?

[DowntownGator]

If guns are bad, how come:

All high politicians – including Dear Leader and Gauleiter Bloomberg – are surrounded by heavily armed guards?

There is never a mass shooting at a police station?

There is virtually no “gun crime” in Switzerland, even though the Swiss are armed to the teeth, with full-auto military combat rifles in the hands of nearly every adult male between the ages of 18 and 45?

Guns save so many lives each year – including most recently the lives of numerous potential victims of a mass shooting in Oregon at the Clackamas Town Center Mall, where concealed carry permit holder Nick Meli confronted armed killer Jacob Tyler Roberts – who had already shot two people dead … and prevented him from shooting more people dead?

Rural areas tend to have high concentrations of guns relative to urban areas – yet “gun crime” is inexorably higher in urban areas while it is almost nonexistent in the rural areas?

Concealed carry permit holders are less likely to be involved in an unjustified (non-defensive) shooting than a cop?

The Obama administration “walked” 2,000 high-powered rifles to Mexican drug cartels?

Some advocates of “sensible” gun control argue that no one needs – take your pick – a semi-automatic pistol or rifle (which means virtually all pistols and rifles that aren’t single-shot Derringers and bolt-action rifles) or a “high capacity” magazine or a weapon over a certain caliber or which has a certain “threatening” (to some) appearance – even if its function is identical to a rifle with a “less menacing” appearance.

Well, who really needs more than $50,000 a year to live on? Or more than an 800 sq. foot dwelling? Does anyone need more car than is sufficient to get from A to B at the posted speed limit? Who really needs anything beyond the bare minimum necessary to maintain one’s physical existence?

Who needs to live to be older than 80? Who needs to have more than one kid?

Do you really need a 40 ounce drink? Or more than one drink of soda per day?

How many calories per day does a person need?

Oh, but guns are different!

Not really. And the principle behind the argument is identical.

If need is to become the justification for allowing us to do (or posses) things, then we are already enslaved in our minds – and soon will be enslaved physically and utterly.

From each according to his abilities… to each according to his needs.

This famous statement is left hanging. The need is never qualified.

Need – according to whom?

Chompalot!!!

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by rpmGator

The true freedom of America in in the fact it is all backed up by an armed people.

If you want to trade freedom for safety, you will get neither.

I don't know that having an armed people has had a single thing to do with our freedom.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by chompalot

That's the title of the op-ed from the conservative judge calling for confiscation of these weapons. It's not a farce.

I hate to rattle your cage, because some numb nut writer calls the judge conservative doesn't make it so. There is something call the constitution which he obviously has issues with in calling for confiscation of firearms.

[Gatoragman]

Sounds great!!!!!!!!
Let's borrow more money from China so we can buy guns back from American citizens!!
When is the last time that any of these weapons have killed someone when they were not in the "hands" of a person?
And River, maybe your right, but I for one do not want to take a chance of losing even more freedoms!

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I hate to rattle your cage, because some numb nut writer calls the judge conservative doesn't make it so. There is something call the constitution which he obviously has issues with in calling for confiscation of firearms.

I think many people understand that the right to bear arms doesn't necessarily mean the right to bear any and all kinds of arms.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I think many people understand that the right to bear arms doesn't necessarily mean the right to bear any and all kinds of arms.

Do you understand what confiscation means? Seriously, am I misunderstanding the premise of this thread?

[gator421]

Originally Posted by DowntownGator

If guns are bad, how come:

All high politicians – including Dear Leader and Gauleiter Bloomberg – are surrounded by heavily armed guards?

There is never a mass shooting at a police station?

There is virtually no “gun crime” in Switzerland, even though the Swiss are armed to the teeth, with full-auto military combat rifles in the hands of nearly every adult male between the ages of 18 and 45?

Guns save so many lives each year – including most recently the lives of numerous potential victims of a mass shooting in Oregon at the Clackamas Town Center Mall, where concealed carry permit holder Nick Meli confronted armed killer Jacob Tyler Roberts – who had already shot two people dead … and prevented him from shooting more people dead?

Rural areas tend to have high concentrations of guns relative to urban areas – yet “gun crime” is inexorably higher in urban areas while it is almost nonexistent in the rural areas?

Concealed carry permit holders are less likely to be involved in an unjustified (non-defensive) shooting than a cop?

The Obama administration “walked” 2,000 high-powered rifles to Mexican drug cartels?

Some advocates of “sensible” gun control argue that no one needs – take your pick – a semi-automatic pistol or rifle (which means virtually all pistols and rifles that aren’t single-shot Derringers and bolt-action rifles) or a “high capacity” magazine or a weapon over a certain caliber or which has a certain “threatening” (to some) appearance – even if its function is identical to a rifle with a “less menacing” appearance.

Well, who really needs more than $50,000 a year to live on? Or more than an 800 sq. foot dwelling? Does anyone need more car than is sufficient to get from A to B at the posted speed limit? Who really needs anything beyond the bare minimum necessary to maintain one’s physical existence?

Who needs to live to be older than 80? Who needs to have more than one kid?

Do you really need a 40 ounce drink? Or more than one drink of soda per day?

How many calories per day does a person need?

Oh, but guns are different!

Not really. And the principle behind the argument is identical.

If need is to become the justification for allowing us to do (or posses) things, then we are already enslaved in our minds – and soon will be enslaved physically and utterly.

From each according to his abilities… to each according to his needs.

This famous statement is left hanging. The need is never qualified.

Need – according to whom?

Chompalot!!!

To much coffee?

[ironhead1]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Do you understand what confiscation means? Seriously, am I misunderstanding the premise of this thread?

Confiscation means the bloodiest days in American history with literally hundreds of thousands of freedom loving gun owning martyrs.

Who will be first in line to walk up to the doors of honest law abiding citizens and say" I'm here to take your guns"?????