Sensible Gun Safety

[cradleandshoot]

Thanks ggait, for engaging with this "definition" baloney.

The " definition" baloney is a big deal MD. Look no further than the SAFE Act signed in to law by Gov. Cuomo. His goal was to ban the sale of these weapons in NYS. Why was that so MD?? Because they could not define what an assault weapon is. An interesting sidenote to the SAFE Act, many local sheriff's in upstate NY and the southern tier basically refuse to enforce it.

Read ggaits posts.

I read them already.

[MDlaxfan76]

FTR, I am not an advocate of these weapons. I had to laugh that by asking this question some folks interpreted that as my being a supporter of these weapons. I would strongly discourage anyone from owning one. I do understand the fascination that draws people to these weapons. I remember back during basic training when we all learned about our M16s. One of the cadre made a very blunt observation about the evolution of the 5.56 round. It was designed to kill a human being in a very lethal manner. The bottom line is that it is a weapon of war. It does what it was designed to do. Five years ago my opinion would have been different than today. I have become as frustrated as anyone in this forum about this round and this weapon becoming the first choice of mentally unstable people that want to kill as many people as quickly as possible. If banning them is the solution I'm all on board. How you go about doing that in a country that reveres and loves these weapons is a very tall mountain to climb. Maybe even someday you folks will take just as serious a position about illegal weapons that are so prevalent all over our country and kill people every damn day.
Thanks to all of you for trying to enlighten me.

Nearly all "illegal" weapons in America were at one point "legal". We need to reduce the amount of ALL of these weapons.

Note the emphasis on making sure that only demonstrably responsible people have ANY weapons includes training, safe storage, etc. The gun enthusiasts can safely use weapons at well regulated gun ranges, hunters can be trained and licensed, and special circumstances can be addressed with training and licensing...but having any tom, dick or harry or Jane be able to buy an AR-15 (or any other weapon) at will and to carry it wherever and whenever they want clearly ain't working.

[MDlaxfan76]

Thanks ggait, for engaging with this "definition" baloney.

The " definition" baloney is a big deal MD. Look no further than the SAFE Act signed in to law by Gov. Cuomo. His goal was to ban the sale of these weapons in NYS. Why was that so MD?? Because they could not define what an assault weapon is. An interesting sidenote to the SAFE Act, many local sheriff's in upstate NY and the southern tier basically refuse to enforce it.

Read ggaits posts.

I read them already.

So then you understand that definitions are about specific details, the purview of the lawyers and legislators, and subject to change as needed?

Done all the time in nearly every area of the law.

Politics are another matter.

[runrussellrun]

Thanks ggait, for engaging with this "definition" baloney.

The " definition" baloney is a big deal MD. Look no further than the SAFE Act signed in to law by Gov. Cuomo. His goal was to ban the sale of these weapons in NYS. Why was that so MD?? Because they could not define what an assault weapon is. An interesting sidenote to the SAFE Act, many local sheriff's in upstate NY and the southern tier basically refuse to enforce it.

Read ggaits posts.

I read them already.

bizarre that you tolerate the belittlement, all the while, what you are belittled for, IS provided. (guess, when you endorse voting YES, on legislation, before even READING, said legislation.....folks establish a certain mindset. Or, mindless-ness set )

Yup, a pump action Remington 870 is considered an "assault" weapon.

going after the GUNS .......while out of the other side of their mouths, support guns for Ukraine. stay principled

[runrussellrun]

Thanks ggait, for engaging with this "definition" baloney.

The " definition" baloney is a big deal MD. Look no further than the SAFE Act signed in to law by Gov. Cuomo. His goal was to ban the sale of these weapons in NYS. Why was that so MD?? Because they could not define what an assault weapon is. An interesting sidenote to the SAFE Act, many local sheriff's in upstate NY and the southern tier basically refuse to enforce it.

Read ggaits posts.

I read them already.

So then you understand that definitions are about specific details, the purview of the lawyers and legislators, and subject to change as needed? Dude, cradle specifically asked about specific details. tough to argue about actual legislation, without said legislation language. Including "definitions" and "specific" details. You , yourself, have provided NO details, just arguments , just to argue.

Done all the time in nearly every area of the law.

Politics are another matter.

yup.....bizarre world. Let's debate vague ideas, and mock those that want specifics. And details. Actual legislation, to discuss, as a hinderence ?

all, while, providing, actual, tho unlinked, spurious and incomplete, "specific details", which was the request, all along.

tough to respect this form of problem solving

[cradleandshoot]

Thanks ggait, for engaging with this "definition" baloney.

The " definition" baloney is a big deal MD. Look no further than the SAFE Act signed in to law by Gov. Cuomo. His goal was to ban the sale of these weapons in NYS. Why was that so MD?? Because they could not define what an assault weapon is. An interesting sidenote to the SAFE Act, many local sheriff's in upstate NY and the southern tier basically refuse to enforce it.

Read ggaits posts.

I read them already.

So then you understand that definitions are about specific details, the purview of the lawyers and legislators, and subject to change as needed?

Done all the time in nearly every area of the law.

Politics are another matter.

Read the SAFE Act. It was governor Cuomo's attempt to ban assault weapons in NYS. Your talking to me as if you think I'm a blithering idiot. I'm talking back at you trying to get you to understand the complex nature of trying to understand what an assault rifle is. Your in favor of banning and confiscating weapons that you yourself can't even define. When you can come up with a comprehensive list based on your own research let me know what you come up with. My question to YOU MD... What is an assault rifle in YOUR OWN WORDS.

[ggait]

All the AWB laws are very specific, as proved by my posts above. So that claim is complete bull shirt.

So far, all the AWB laws are constitutional. So at present, the claim that there's a 2A problem with AWB laws is also complete bull shirt.

However, there is a pending challenge to the MD AWB law in the 4th Circuit. Stay tuned.

The complaints about the definitions are also complete bull shirt. The fly specking prevarication on here is just lame.

Nothing in life is ever 100%. Including any piece of legislation. But it is obviously true that the AWB laws correctly (but not perfectly) identify the dangerous guns that they intend to regulate.

If folks are using Remington 870s to shoot up elementary schools, then they should be more strictly regualted. If, on reflection, it seems like that weapon that should not be more strictly regulated, the law can be amended. Or Remington can work around it in their new models.

The pearl clutching and rationalizing of the pro gunners on this is embarassing and disgraceful. Look at what we ask the police in Louisville and Nashville to do on a regular basis. It is obscene. Rookie officer Witt was on his fourth day of patrol when he ran towards the fire with only a handgun. And he got a bullet in the head from an ar-15.

Why? So a bunch of needle dick old white bubbas can assuage their inadequacies with an AR-15. We should make those loser dudes run towards an AR-15 armed shooter and see how they feel about it then. Fork them all.

[cradleandshoot]

FTR, I am not an advocate of these weapons. I had to laugh that by asking this question some folks interpreted that as my being a supporter of these weapons. I would strongly discourage anyone from owning one. I do understand the fascination that draws people to these weapons. I remember back during basic training when we all learned about our M16s. One of the cadre made a very blunt observation about the evolution of the 5.56 round. It was designed to kill a human being in a very lethal manner. The bottom line is that it is a weapon of war. It does what it was designed to do. Five years ago my opinion would have been different than today. I have become as frustrated as anyone in this forum about this round and this weapon becoming the first choice of mentally unstable people that want to kill as many people as quickly as possible. If banning them is the solution I'm all on board. How you go about doing that in a country that reveres and loves these weapons is a very tall mountain to climb. Maybe even someday you folks will take just as serious a position about illegal weapons that are so prevalent all over our country and kill people every damn day.
Thanks to all of you for trying to enlighten me.

Nearly all "illegal" weapons in America were at one point "legal". We need to reduce the amount of ALL of these weapons.

Note the emphasis on making sure that only demonstrably responsible people have ANY weapons includes training, safe storage, etc. The gun enthusiasts can safely use weapons at well regulated gun ranges, hunters can be trained and licensed, and special circumstances can be addressed with training and licensing...but having any tom, dick or harry or Jane be able to buy an AR-15 (or any other weapon) at will and to carry it wherever and whenever they want clearly ain't working.

Gov Cuomo's SAFE Act was an attempt by the state of NY to address those issues that are near and dear to your heart. You can still purchase a wide variety of these weapons in NYS today. Gov Cuomo with all of his wisdom and all of his advisors could never define what an assault weapon is. I could go out tomorrow and purchase legally a Ruger mini 14 with no questions asked. The Ruger weapon is perfectly legal to own in accordance to NYS law. The Ruger is a 5.56 semi automatic assault rifle just as lethal as any other AR-15 type weapon on the market today. Why didn't Gov Cuomo include this weapon in the SAFE Act??? FYI the Ruger weapon has been flying off of the shelves in gun stores all over NYS. It ain't like it is a kinder and gentle version of the AR-15 type weapons. It is in every respect the same God damn weapon as any AR 15 type rifle. It just does not look all that scary and intimidating.

[MDlaxfan76]

FTR, I am not an advocate of these weapons. I had to laugh that by asking this question some folks interpreted that as my being a supporter of these weapons. I would strongly discourage anyone from owning one. I do understand the fascination that draws people to these weapons. I remember back during basic training when we all learned about our M16s. One of the cadre made a very blunt observation about the evolution of the 5.56 round. It was designed to kill a human being in a very lethal manner. The bottom line is that it is a weapon of war. It does what it was designed to do. Five years ago my opinion would have been different than today. I have become as frustrated as anyone in this forum about this round and this weapon becoming the first choice of mentally unstable people that want to kill as many people as quickly as possible. If banning them is the solution I'm all on board. How you go about doing that in a country that reveres and loves these weapons is a very tall mountain to climb. Maybe even someday you folks will take just as serious a position about illegal weapons that are so prevalent all over our country and kill people every damn day.
Thanks to all of you for trying to enlighten me.

Nearly all "illegal" weapons in America were at one point "legal". We need to reduce the amount of ALL of these weapons.

Note the emphasis on making sure that only demonstrably responsible people have ANY weapons includes training, safe storage, etc. The gun enthusiasts can safely use weapons at well regulated gun ranges, hunters can be trained and licensed, and special circumstances can be addressed with training and licensing...but having any tom, dick or harry or Jane be able to buy an AR-15 (or any other weapon) at will and to carry it wherever and whenever they want clearly ain't working.

Gov Cuomo's SAFE Act was an attempt by the state of NY to address those issues that are near and dear to your heart. You can still purchase a wide variety of these weapons in NYS today. Gov Cuomo with all of his wisdom and all of his advisors could never define what an assault weapon is. I could go out tomorrow and purchase legally a Ruger mini 14 with no questions asked. The Ruger weapon is perfectly legal to own in accordance to NYS law. The Ruger is a 5.56 semi automatic assault rifle just as lethal as any other AR-15 type weapon on the market today. Why didn't Gov Cuomo include this weapon in the SAFE Act??? FYI the Ruger weapon has been flying off of the shelves in gun stores all over NYS. It ain't like it is a kinder and gentle version of the AR-15 type weapons. It is in every respect the same God damn weapon as any AR 15 type rifle. It just does not look all that scary and intimidating.

Based solely on your assertions, sounds like the Ruger should be added to the list. Other than that, I have no comment.

ggait said it much better than I would.

[ggait]

Pending US Senate AWB bill says this:

“(xix) Sturm, Ruger & Co. Mini-14 Tactical Rifle M–14/20CF.

Is that what you are talking about? If so, then the federal bill would handle this. Fairly simple generic exercise of legislative process.

And as with everything in life, you never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Kaizen (continuous improvement) is how you should operate in the real world.

[runrussellrun]

All the AWB laws are very specific, as proved by my posts above. So that claim is complete bull shirt.

So far, all the AWB laws are constitutional. So at present, the claim that there's a 2A problem with AWB laws is also complete bull shirt.

However, there is a pending challenge to the MD AWB law in the 4th Circuit. Stay tuned.

The complaints about the definitions are also complete bull shirt. The fly specking prevarication on here is just lame.

Nothing in life is ever 100%. Including any piece of legislation. But it is obviously true that the AWB laws correctly (but not perfectly) identify the dangerous guns that they intend to regulate.

If folks are using Remington 870s to shoot up elementary schools, then they should be more strictly regualted. If, on reflection, it seems like that weapon that should not be more strictly regulated, the law can be amended. Or Remington can work around it in their new models.

The pearl clutching and rationalizing of the pro gunners on this is embarassing and disgraceful. Look at what we ask the police in Louisville and Nashville to do on a regular basis. It is obscene. Rookie officer Witt was on his fourth day of patrol when he ran towards the fire with only a handgun. And he got a bullet in the head from an ar-15.

Why? So a bunch of needle dick old white bubbas can assuage their inadequacies with an AR-15. We should make those loser dudes run towards an AR-15 armed shooter and see how they feel about it then. Fork them all.

All good questions.

In all seriousness, we, citizens of the US, should be armed with the exact same weaponary as those that "protect and serve".

Why should cops like Philip Brailsworth , be allowed to be armed with "assault weapons", but NOT us ?

As a result, Brailsford was unanimously approved to be retired on medical grounds. Brailsford was also given a pension of $2,500 per month. The fact that Brailsford was ultimately medically retired instead of remaining fired was only revealed to the public in July 2019

yup.......remember this guy ? More importantly, remember that the MESA police rehired this guy. Who committed murder, in a hotel hallway. Cops have a policy issue...ya think? yikes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/us/p ... izona.html
yup......only COPS should be allowed assault weapons. got it.

[cradleandshoot]

FTR, I am not an advocate of these weapons. I had to laugh that by asking this question some folks interpreted that as my being a supporter of these weapons. I would strongly discourage anyone from owning one. I do understand the fascination that draws people to these weapons. I remember back during basic training when we all learned about our M16s. One of the cadre made a very blunt observation about the evolution of the 5.56 round. It was designed to kill a human being in a very lethal manner. The bottom line is that it is a weapon of war. It does what it was designed to do. Five years ago my opinion would have been different than today. I have become as frustrated as anyone in this forum about this round and this weapon becoming the first choice of mentally unstable people that want to kill as many people as quickly as possible. If banning them is the solution I'm all on board. How you go about doing that in a country that reveres and loves these weapons is a very tall mountain to climb. Maybe even someday you folks will take just as serious a position about illegal weapons that are so prevalent all over our country and kill people every damn day.
Thanks to all of you for trying to enlighten me.

Nearly all "illegal" weapons in America were at one point "legal". We need to reduce the amount of ALL of these weapons.

Note the emphasis on making sure that only demonstrably responsible people have ANY weapons includes training, safe storage, etc. The gun enthusiasts can safely use weapons at well regulated gun ranges, hunters can be trained and licensed, and special circumstances can be addressed with training and licensing...but having any tom, dick or harry or Jane be able to buy an AR-15 (or any other weapon) at will and to carry it wherever and whenever they want clearly ain't working.

Gov Cuomo's SAFE Act was an attempt by the state of NY to address those issues that are near and dear to your heart. You can still purchase a wide variety of these weapons in NYS today. Gov Cuomo with all of his wisdom and all of his advisors could never define what an assault weapon is. I could go out tomorrow and purchase legally a Ruger mini 14 with no questions asked. The Ruger weapon is perfectly legal to own in accordance to NYS law. The Ruger is a 5.56 semi automatic assault rifle just as lethal as any other AR-15 type weapon on the market today. Why didn't Gov Cuomo include this weapon in the SAFE Act??? FYI the Ruger weapon has been flying off of the shelves in gun stores all over NYS. It ain't like it is a kinder and gentle version of the AR-15 type weapons. It is in every respect the same God damn weapon as any AR 15 type rifle. It just does not look all that scary and intimidating.

Based solely on your assertions, sounds like the Ruger should be added to the list. Other than that, I have no comment.

ggait said it much better than I would.

Well then why didn't Gov Cuomo include the weapon in the SAFE Act?? The stated objective was to ban these weapons.

[cradleandshoot]

Pending US Senate AWB bill says this:

“(xix) Sturm, Ruger & Co. Mini-14 Tactical Rifle M–14/20CF.

Is that what you are talking about? If so, then the federal bill would handle this. Fairly simple generic exercise of legislative process.

And as with everything in life, you never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Kaizen (continuous improvement) is how you should operate in the real world.

I give you credit for doing due diligence in your research. Why didn't Gov Cuomo include this weapon in the SAFE Act??????? I have my own opinion. The Ruger does not look like the typical AR-15 weapon. Upon first glance it looks relatively harmless. I have no idea what a federal ban would potentially look like. I do know that any proposed ban as presently advocated would never pass muster in the SCOTUS. That 2nd amendment poses quite the conundrum. It advocates for a well regulated militia and then ventures off into language that is very clear in its meaning... THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. There is not alot of ambiguity in those words. They do need to interpreted by what a well regulated militia is suppose to be.

[jhu72]

Mayor says Louisville shooter’s rifle ‘will be back on the streets’ under state law
The mayor of Louisville has said Kentucky law would make him a criminal if he destroys the assault-style rifle used by a gunman in Monday’s killing of five bank employees in his city.

The killer’s rifle was confiscated after police shot him dead, and Kentucky law requires officers to send it to state police officials to sell at auction.

How sweet. You will soon be able to by a murder weapon for your collection. Kentucky is so cool.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... SApp_Other

... lots of states have the same procedure. Used to fund the state and / or local police. Guess what map color most of these states are.

[MDlaxfan76]

FTR, I am not an advocate of these weapons. I had to laugh that by asking this question some folks interpreted that as my being a supporter of these weapons. I would strongly discourage anyone from owning one. I do understand the fascination that draws people to these weapons. I remember back during basic training when we all learned about our M16s. One of the cadre made a very blunt observation about the evolution of the 5.56 round. It was designed to kill a human being in a very lethal manner. The bottom line is that it is a weapon of war. It does what it was designed to do. Five years ago my opinion would have been different than today. I have become as frustrated as anyone in this forum about this round and this weapon becoming the first choice of mentally unstable people that want to kill as many people as quickly as possible. If banning them is the solution I'm all on board. How you go about doing that in a country that reveres and loves these weapons is a very tall mountain to climb. Maybe even someday you folks will take just as serious a position about illegal weapons that are so prevalent all over our country and kill people every damn day.
Thanks to all of you for trying to enlighten me.

Nearly all "illegal" weapons in America were at one point "legal". We need to reduce the amount of ALL of these weapons.

Note the emphasis on making sure that only demonstrably responsible people have ANY weapons includes training, safe storage, etc. The gun enthusiasts can safely use weapons at well regulated gun ranges, hunters can be trained and licensed, and special circumstances can be addressed with training and licensing...but having any tom, dick or harry or Jane be able to buy an AR-15 (or any other weapon) at will and to carry it wherever and whenever they want clearly ain't working.

Gov Cuomo's SAFE Act was an attempt by the state of NY to address those issues that are near and dear to your heart. You can still purchase a wide variety of these weapons in NYS today. Gov Cuomo with all of his wisdom and all of his advisors could never define what an assault weapon is. I could go out tomorrow and purchase legally a Ruger mini 14 with no questions asked. The Ruger weapon is perfectly legal to own in accordance to NYS law. The Ruger is a 5.56 semi automatic assault rifle just as lethal as any other AR-15 type weapon on the market today. Why didn't Gov Cuomo include this weapon in the SAFE Act??? FYI the Ruger weapon has been flying off of the shelves in gun stores all over NYS. It ain't like it is a kinder and gentle version of the AR-15 type weapons. It is in every respect the same God damn weapon as any AR 15 type rifle. It just does not look all that scary and intimidating.

Based solely on your assertions, sounds like the Ruger should be added to the list. Other than that, I have no comment.

ggait said it much better than I would.

Well then why didn't Gov Cuomo include the weapon in the SAFE Act?? The stated objective was to ban these weapons.

I have no idea. I don't follow NYS legislation closely, nor did I vote for Cuomo or anyone else up there.

Sounds like proposed federal legislation didn't miss it.

[PizzaSnake]

FTR, I am not an advocate of these weapons. I had to laugh that by asking this question some folks interpreted that as my being a supporter of these weapons. I would strongly discourage anyone from owning one. I do understand the fascination that draws people to these weapons. I remember back during basic training when we all learned about our M16s. One of the cadre made a very blunt observation about the evolution of the 5.56 round. It was designed to kill a human being in a very lethal manner. The bottom line is that it is a weapon of war. It does what it was designed to do. Five years ago my opinion would have been different than today. I have become as frustrated as anyone in this forum about this round and this weapon becoming the first choice of mentally unstable people that want to kill as many people as quickly as possible. If banning them is the solution I'm all on board. How you go about doing that in a country that reveres and loves these weapons is a very tall mountain to climb. Maybe even someday you folks will take just as serious a position about illegal weapons that are so prevalent all over our country and kill people every damn day.
Thanks to all of you for trying to enlighten me.

Nearly all "illegal" weapons in America were at one point "legal". We need to reduce the amount of ALL of these weapons.

Note the emphasis on making sure that only demonstrably responsible people have ANY weapons includes training, safe storage, etc. The gun enthusiasts can safely use weapons at well regulated gun ranges, hunters can be trained and licensed, and special circumstances can be addressed with training and licensing...but having any tom, dick or harry or Jane be able to buy an AR-15 (or any other weapon) at will and to carry it wherever and whenever they want clearly ain't working.

I guess that depends on your definition of "working"...

If the plan is to use the 2nd Amendment as a "mother of all wedges" to divide the deluded polity, I think you'd be hard pressed to beat it.

[ardilla secreta]

Tennessee governor Mike Lee has submitted this as the prototype of future schools in the state.

IMG_9622.jpeg (117.97 KiB) Viewed 464 times

[PizzaSnake]

Tennessee governor Mike Lee has submitted this as the prototype of future schools in the state.
IMG_9622.jpeg

I thought this was the plan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhouse

[cradleandshoot]

FTR, I am not an advocate of these weapons. I had to laugh that by asking this question some folks interpreted that as my being a supporter of these weapons. I would strongly discourage anyone from owning one. I do understand the fascination that draws people to these weapons. I remember back during basic training when we all learned about our M16s. One of the cadre made a very blunt observation about the evolution of the 5.56 round. It was designed to kill a human being in a very lethal manner. The bottom line is that it is a weapon of war. It does what it was designed to do. Five years ago my opinion would have been different than today. I have become as frustrated as anyone in this forum about this round and this weapon becoming the first choice of mentally unstable people that want to kill as many people as quickly as possible. If banning them is the solution I'm all on board. How you go about doing that in a country that reveres and loves these weapons is a very tall mountain to climb. Maybe even someday you folks will take just as serious a position about illegal weapons that are so prevalent all over our country and kill people every damn day.
Thanks to all of you for trying to enlighten me.

Nearly all "illegal" weapons in America were at one point "legal". We need to reduce the amount of ALL of these weapons.

Note the emphasis on making sure that only demonstrably responsible people have ANY weapons includes training, safe storage, etc. The gun enthusiasts can safely use weapons at well regulated gun ranges, hunters can be trained and licensed, and special circumstances can be addressed with training and licensing...but having any tom, dick or harry or Jane be able to buy an AR-15 (or any other weapon) at will and to carry it wherever and whenever they want clearly ain't working.

I understand your frustration. Many of the restrictions that you are in favor of are likely a clear violation of the 2nd amendment to the United States constitution. It may not be working the way you want it to. You can add that to the ever growing list of things in this country that are not working as intended. The criminal justice system in our country is one prime example of something that is completely FUBAR. The sad reality is MD, much to your chagrin, in many states if your law abiding citizen you can purchase an AR 15 type weapon and carry it wherever and whenever you want if you do so in compliance with the laws of your state. Any federal weapons ban as described by ggait sounds like a great start. I have on issue with such a federal ban that poses a huge constitutional issue to overcome. I may be wrong but I believe there are 50 states in charge of making their own gun laws. I know there are federal guidelines that must be met. You can't purchase a fully automatic in any state that I'm aware of. I'm pretty sure the federal ban as proposed creates a huge legal problem for the federal government. Can they legally supercede the rights of individual states? This is an issue that has SCOTUS written all over it.

[MDlaxfan76]

FTR, I am not an advocate of these weapons. I had to laugh that by asking this question some folks interpreted that as my being a supporter of these weapons. I would strongly discourage anyone from owning one. I do understand the fascination that draws people to these weapons. I remember back during basic training when we all learned about our M16s. One of the cadre made a very blunt observation about the evolution of the 5.56 round. It was designed to kill a human being in a very lethal manner. The bottom line is that it is a weapon of war. It does what it was designed to do. Five years ago my opinion would have been different than today. I have become as frustrated as anyone in this forum about this round and this weapon becoming the first choice of mentally unstable people that want to kill as many people as quickly as possible. If banning them is the solution I'm all on board. How you go about doing that in a country that reveres and loves these weapons is a very tall mountain to climb. Maybe even someday you folks will take just as serious a position about illegal weapons that are so prevalent all over our country and kill people every damn day.
Thanks to all of you for trying to enlighten me.

Nearly all "illegal" weapons in America were at one point "legal". We need to reduce the amount of ALL of these weapons.

Note the emphasis on making sure that only demonstrably responsible people have ANY weapons includes training, safe storage, etc. The gun enthusiasts can safely use weapons at well regulated gun ranges, hunters can be trained and licensed, and special circumstances can be addressed with training and licensing...but having any tom, dick or harry or Jane be able to buy an AR-15 (or any other weapon) at will and to carry it wherever and whenever they want clearly ain't working.

I understand your frustration. Many of the restrictions that you are in favor of are likely a clear violation of the 2nd amendment to the United States constitution. It may not be working the way you want it to. You can add that to the ever growing list of things in this country that are not working as intended. The criminal justice system in our country is one prime example of something that is completely FUBAR. The sad reality is MD, much to your chagrin, in many states if your law abiding citizen you can purchase an AR 15 type weapon and carry it wherever and whenever you want if you do so in compliance with the laws of your state. Any federal weapons ban as described by ggait sounds like a great start. I have on issue with such a federal ban that poses a huge constitutional issue to overcome. I may be wrong but I believe there are 50 states in charge of making their own gun laws. I know there are federal guidelines that must be met. You can't purchase a fully automatic in any state that I'm aware of. I'm pretty sure the federal ban as proposed creates a huge legal problem for the federal government. Can they legally supercede the rights of individual states? This is an issue that has SCOTUS written all over it.

cradle, it wasn't a "clear violation" of the 2nd Amendment when there was a prior federal ban of assault weapons. Nor is it now...though we have a quite different SCOTUS, engineered politically by right wing radicals, so they might say otherwise...5-4 or even 6-3. But that ain't "clear". A flip in SCOTUS changes that outcome.

Nor have all the other sorts of restrictions, whether done at the state or federal level, been "clear violations".

Please understand that while I think it's important to do this federally, given the ability of people to so easily go to another state to buy weapons they can't buy in their own state and then use or sell them illegally in their own state, I'm also advocating these restrictions in ALL states, state by state, if not federally.