Even with the 1994 assault weapons ban, not a single gun was taken away from anyone. So, if you care about your reputation, stop saying that.
I do apologize I should clarify if the gun was made after it was passed it would be illegal, and then confiscated. To me though....why does it matter when its made?
Although the ban Diane Feinstine is proposing, is just like the 1994 AWB with the exception of it being permanent, and no grandfather clause
It's simple. They wrote the law that way so that no guns would be taken away from anyone, so people like you wouldn't get into a rage. After 1994 it was illegal to manufacture them in the US and it was illegal to import them.
Once again, you are being misleading. Even her bill does not take any assault weapons away from anyone. The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of assault weapons.
but wouldn't that make the prices rise, and thus make it harder to get them for financial reasons, thus making it an unfair law? Why make it illegal to manufacture them or import them anyway if you can still get them, oh , it will cost them a lot of money, meaning the average man can't afford them. So my question is , are you okay with a ban on future made firearms, and giving a grandfather clause?
Hmmm maybe it wasn't feinstines, but I read somewhere that one of the bills being proposed, does want them to be confiscated.... And even so, the bill is still bullshit, so I couldn't even sell it to an ffl dealer? I gotta own that gun for the rest of my life.
We tax cigarettes to make them more expensive on purpose. Doesn't bother me a bit that assault weapons might get a little more expensive.
In my opinion that is an elitist attitude.... A man who makes 15000 a year has the same right to own and should be able to own and afford this so called assault rifle as the man who makes a million a year. Also you call me misinformed, I acknowledge that, but you to are wrong they aren't assault weapons semi automatics are not assault weapons.... its only an assault weapon if its full auto, selective fire....so everyones wrong to a degree sometimes
It's funny your sig says freedom/Liberty but you know nothing of it. Oh you mean freedom/liberty for everyone who listens to arbitrary laws, and aren't too culturally different than you. :2thumbsup: Got it.
Really? Nothing? So then do you simply deny, that many countries in History have confiscated the citizens guns to commit genocide? Also, I want to say. You think you support Liberty, but you only support it when it come to things you're okay with. The Right to Bear Arms is our 2nd Amendment (tread title) and you're telling me it doesn't have much to do with freedom? I could be really mean about your belief in forcing other to comply with your world view, but I'll say simply that you're no better than your political enemies, and in fact, the same thing on all the important issues. (Constitution/TRUE Liberty)
yeah and on top of that i should be able to drive a corvette just like the man who makes a million a year.
A vehicle is merely a means of transportation. any car will get you to destination A to destination B the same However I can't hunt deer with a .22, I can not adequately defend myself, if I am unequally armed. Yes I could probably do it with other guns, but I should have the choice to use an ar-15 if I want to , because it makes it equaler
Then you are a hypocrite. Oh and also hunting with a bow can be less humane than hunting with a gun, if the deer is shot wrong. I support hunting both ways. Stop attacking my way of life, don't own a gun if you don't want to dont tread on my rights hypocrite