Why Would You Own An Assault Rifle?

[ChadTower]

Maybe it is worth taking a step back from the "should they" question and ask "can they".

If the federal gov't were to ban the AR-15 today, seeing as how that's the elephant on the table in this discussion, how would it do so? Let's assume Congress passes a law and announces that all AR-15s are to be turned in to Police Stations within 60 days.

What happens then?

 

[dinosaur]

Let's assume Congress passes a law and announces that all AR-15s are to be turned in to Police Stations within 60 days.

What happens then?

That's easy. A bunch of them would be turned in and a bunch of them wouldn't.

 

[ChadTower]

That's easy. A bunch of them would be turned in and a bunch of them wouldn't.

I would go so far as to say almost all of them would not. Not unless there was some sort of penalty for failure to do so. Why would someone hand an expensive item to the gov't in return for nothing? Even people who did not mind losing the rifle would be unhappy about losing an item worth hundreds of dollars.

So... does the gov't start buying them? Or does it impose a penalty for failure to surrender the AR-15 by a specific date?

 

[wvbreamfisherman]

Well in states with registration, the authorities will have a list of places to go ask why they didn't comply. In those that don't, not so much. In those that do, I'm sure a lot of those guns will have been lost in tragic boating accidents and never recovered.

 

[ChadTower]

Well in states with registration, the authorities will have a list of places to go ask why they didn't comply. In those that don't, not so much. In those that do, I'm sure a lot of those guns will have been lost in tragic boating accidents and never recovered.

Who would go and ask for the guns? How would they ask? What would the response be? These are all important questions. This is where the rubber meets the road when we talk about taking away guns that people already own.

IMO, the first question asked about any proposed law should be "is it fair?" The second question should be "Is it enforceable?" Right now people are all hot and bothered debating the fairness without anyone giving any thought to enforcement.

 

[wvbreamfisherman]

Who would go and ask for the guns? How would they ask? What would the response be? These are all important questions. This is where the rubber meets the road when we talk about taking away guns that people already own.

IMO, the first question asked about any proposed law should be "is it fair?" The second question should be "Is it enforceable?" Right now people are all hot and bothered debating the fairness without anyone giving any thought to enforcement.

Actually, the FIRST question should be "Is it Constitutional?" The Second question should be "Will it solve the problem I'd proposing it to adress?"

In answer to your first point- I imagine that in writing your hypothetical law, that someone would be charged with enforcing it.

As to how they would ask, I envision first a polite registered letter ro all those who registered the subject firearms.

Something to the effect that; "Possibly you are not aware that your weapon serial number XXX is now illegal for you to possess. You must turn in such weapons by date XX/XX/XX to avoid significant civil and criminal penalties".

Sincerely,

Your gun confiscation agency.

And escalating from there. Next a very threatening letter. Maybe a couple more letters, then a demand to appear in court on a certain date to answer a criminal complaint, or a warrant would be issued.

Then a visit from a number of very heavily armed people, probably in the middle of the night, accompanied by door-busting and flash-bangs and dog-shooting.

Think of the Randy Weaver case, or any number of SWAT team "dynamic entry" types of warrant serving.

 

[dinosaur]

Money opens all doors.

Well, there is that one door it won't open; the morality door. And, it has been my experience that the more doors you open with money, the more frozen shut that morality door becomes.

As for who and how it is decided what people should have and shouldn't have, I stopped needing anyone to decide for me when I became an adult. This is key. Most people just need to grow up and stop depending on someone else to make their decisions for them.

The guy at fault is usually the guy in the mirror. And, you cannot legislate morality.

 

[ChadTower]

Well, there is that one door it won't open; the morality door. And, it has been my experience that the more doors you open with money, the more frozen shut that morality door becomes.

History has proven that can be done too given enough money. If the guy with the most gold decides to redefine morality he can do so. That's how new churches get started and gov't regime changes happen.

Henry VIII is probably the best example of how the man with the most gold can redefine morality to suit his own whims. Dude changed the moral rules for half of Europe so he could get away from his annoying wife.

 

[dinosaur]

Look what happened to Henry VIII. Redefining morality with money doesn't work.

 

[ChadTower]

If it didn't work then any marriage after the first would not be possible under the Catholic church. They were immoral and unrecognized before Henry the VIII. Now they are not only morally acceptable they are pretty much expected.

 

[Cappy]

Being a simple ole country boy I aint sure what an assault rifle is. I own 2 rifles, a 22 for small game and a 30-30 for big game. I own 2 shot guns a pump 12 gauge for small or large game, and a single shot 12 gauge with a long barrel for big birds. The 12 gauge pump stays propped against da head board on my side of the bed and the 22 is propped against Peg's side. We live in the country on the edge of a swamp and there are lots of 'varmets around.' I have never owned or for that matter shot a pistol cause I dont need them. Ohhh, and incase ya plannin' to sneek over one night and steal them all my guns are loaded and be ware Peg is a better shot than I am.

 

[oldsarge]

While reading the latest on New York's newest gun laws They stated this in the article

"Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features, such as folding stock, muzzle flash suppressor or bayonet mount."

I find it so damn funny that none of those "military features" have anything to do you what happens during a shooting. How does the definition of an assault rifle change so much from state to state. Just goes to show that none of those legal eagles seems to know what their talking about.

 

[JeepThrills]

Most people have a hard time distinguishing between needs and wants. I have very few needs but a whole bunch of wants. I also have the intelligence to tell the difference between the two.

I agree. You need food. You need water. You need air. You need shelter. You don't necessarily need clothes, but you can get into a lot of trouble if you show up someplace without them. Almost everything else is a "want."

 

[ChadTower]

I need beer.

 

[Boroffski]

If it didn't work then any marriage after the first would not be possible under the Catholic church. They were immoral and unrecognized before Henry the VIII. Now they are not only morally acceptable they are pretty much expected.

So he redefined British and Cathoic VALUES. That has nothing to do with MY morality, or our govt's for that matter. Morality doesn't pay, nor can it be bought. But, hand out enough $ and all is good.... I think not.

I'll buy the first round chadtower.

 

[Boroffski]

I would never own an "assault rifle", I have plenty of "assault hands" and "assault feet" to use.

However. If we call it what it actually is..... A SEMI-AUTO RIFLE, and not a left-wing media moniker..... I'll take one of each!

I'll stick with my first post anyhow.

 

[dinosaur]

If it didn't work then any marriage after the first would not be possible under the Catholic church. They were immoral and unrecognized before Henry the VIII. Now they are not only morally acceptable they are pretty much expected.

I still maintain that morality cannot be purchased. The above is simply an example of an organization being purchased.

 

[Pathfinder1]

Maybe it is worth taking a step back from the "should they" question and ask "can they".

If the federal gov't were to ban the AR-15 today, seeing as how that's the elephant on the table in this discussion, how would it do so? Let's assume Congress passes a law and announces that all AR-15s are to be turned in to Police Stations within 60 days.

What happens then?

Hi...


Don't worry...somebody would turn ONE in...!!:tinysmile_fatgrin_t

 

[Pathfinder1]

I don't know...are they "tactical"?

Hi...


They are when I'm wearing them...!!:tinysmile_fatgrin_t:tinysmile_fatgrin_t

 

[Pathfinder1]

The original question was "Why Would You Own An Assault Rifle?" My answer to that question is "Because It Is My Right To." No other explanation should be needed.[/QUOTE]




Hi...


That's a good answer...!!