bbauska wrote:My point with Heller is to have the Supreme Court decide or have Congress write the Amendment to the Constitution's 2nd Amendment. Until then, no restriction on ANY ownership unless probable cause. There is NO legitimate reason that I, a law abiding citizen w/o legal problems, qualified weapons trained, w/o mental defect; cannot own whatever weapon I want. Please do not be snide and mention Nuclear weapons, etc... We are talking assault weapons here.

What legal reason are you giving me for the infringement of my 2nd Amendment rights? Please infringe those who violate the law. Leave the law abiding alone.

Guapo wrote:Don't you see that Danivon, in his all-knowing English mind, has declared that they all got it wrong?

The founders misunderstood what they wrote--as has everyone since.

I agree with 3-10 w/ a caveat of the age being 21. If you can drink, drive and join the military, you should get ALL the rights of citizenship.
My point with Heller is to have the Supreme Court decide or have Congress write the Amendment to the Constitution's 2nd Amendment. Until then, no restriction on ANY ownership unless probable cause. There is NO legitimate reason that I, a law abiding citizen w/o legal problems, qualified weapons trained, w/o mental defect; cannot own whatever weapon I want. Please do not be snide and mention Nuclear weapons, etc... We are talking assault weapons here.
What legal reason are you giving me for the infringement of my 2nd Amendment rights? Please infringe those who violate the law. Leave the law abiding alone

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Is gun violence on the rise?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/26/c ... -20-years/

I've seen that graph before. What does it tell you?

1) That in the period after the assault weapon ban came in, deaths from guns went down dramatically, while deaths from other causes declined but not by as much

2) That gun deaths have risen slightly since the low point of the late 1990s - especially when you add 'other guns' to 'handguns'. At the same time, the total of other homicides has been flat. Declining in the case of blunt weapons.

3) That violence using guns may be falling, but deaths from them are not - which tells a story.

Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

danivon wrote:Anyway, change the laws, and retain the right to own weapons legally - what's the problem, bbauska?

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I agree with 3-10 w/ a caveat of the age being 21. If you can drink, drive and join the military, you should get ALL the rights of citizenship.
My point with Heller is to have the Supreme Court decide or have Congress write the Amendment to the Constitution's 2nd Amendment. Until then, no restriction on ANY ownership unless probable cause. There is NO legitimate reason that I, a law abiding citizen w/o legal problems, qualified weapons trained, w/o mental defect; cannot own whatever weapon I want. Please do not be snide and mention Nuclear weapons, etc... We are talking assault weapons here.
What legal reason are you giving me for the infringement of my 2nd Amendment rights? Please infringe those who violate the law. Leave the law abiding alone

.

If you knew that a ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons like Australia's could effectively end mass shootings in 5 to 10 years.... would it be worth th sacrifice of your right to own such weapons?

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration