Gun Restrictions and Your Rights

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

To put in your crotch where you obviously are lacking in that department if you need an AK-47.

Like many things, it has nothing to do with need

[FRPLG]

Just Facts Gun Control
Good stats site here. Has lots of stats that show the whole picture apparently unbiased.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by dmek25

one of my buddies was just bragging at work the other day because he had just purchased an AK 47. what exactly would someone use that for?

Now that is a good question. I see no good reason for assault weapons being legal.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Now that is a good question. I see no good reason for assault weapons being legal.

When you look at it, (so called) assault weapons are no different than any other firearm. They were branded with an Evil name, and the politico's convinced us they were bad. They do not do anything, any other semi-automatic firearm, does not do.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Could someone tell me why police almost always oppose the liberalization of gun laws?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Now that is a good question. I see no good reason for assault weapons being legal.

I don't have a problem with making them illegal or make them so you have to go through a major back ground check (at buyers expense) and it would be a major crime to re-sell the gun to anyone who did not have that proper permit.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Could someone tell me why police almost always oppose the liberalization of gun laws?

I'm not sure if that is true or is that what the liberal media wants us to think. I'm not going to interview a cop who says its OK if I'm against guns.

[Hog1]

What is the purpose of a (so called) assault weapons ban?

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I would think that more disclosure from medical records could help. Maybe if someone is admitted to counseling or is taking certain types of drugs, they aren't allowed to have one.

That's exactly what I feel should be done. The easiest solution for this is that anyone who seeks treatment for a mental condition either voluntarily or involuntarily would be subject to an evaluation for firearms as well. What I mean by that is if while in treatment, a doctor is alerted to a specific type of behavior he deems dangerous, then the doctor would be required to send a notice to NICS. It could be a temporary notice or a permanent one. The only way that person could get the alert taken off would be for them to have their doctor to contact NICS or by a court order. That way there is an alert in a national database for everyone else to see when they are running backgrounds.

The problem is the NRA and the privacy folks will jump all over this. They might agree that it's a good idea in part, but will make the argument that if we do it, then we will begin sliding down a slippery slope.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'm not sure if that is true or is that what the liberal media wants us to think. I'm not going to interview a cop who says its OK if I'm against guns.

Nope, no liberal media bias here. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the world’s oldest and largest membership organization of police executives, supported the Brady laws and regularly opposes liberalization of the states' concealed carry laws. But don't believe me, look em up on the internet. That the "experts" on crime oppose the liberalization of CC laws should be worth something.

Granted, the IACP is just one organization (with international dimensions), but I live in a Red State and, on the state and local level, all of the police here strongly oppose the liberalization of such laws.

[Hog1]

I, personally can put no credence in what the police believe to be true, or not. They have their agenda.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I, personally can put no credence in what the police believe to be true, or not. They have their agenda.

What's their "agenda?"

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Hog1

When you look at it, (so called) assault weapons are no different than any other firearm. They were branded with an Evil name, and the politico's convinced us they were bad. They do not do anything, any other semi-automatic firearm, does not do.

Except that they are convertable to auto fire. Yes, it takes some knowledge and is illegal BUT for those who desire to do so, it can be done AND it can't be done with standard rifles or semi-auto pistols.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I, personally can put no credence in what the police believe to be true, or not. They have their agenda.

Yes - it's called attempting to stay alive while protecting the citizenry.

[firstdown]

Well it looks like their agenda is to get more money coming to them from congerss and yes they want to get assult weapon bill back inforce. Did not have much time to read any more.

IACP - What's New - What's New