carlfense Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Sometimes you'll find it in the strangest places. Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns. "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level. http://www.iberkshires.com/story/14812/Romney-signs-off-on-permanent-assault-weapons-ban.html Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I am a gun owner and an advocate of owning guns. I will fight like hell to keep that freedom. However, I can see restrictions on these types of guns. And, I have no problem with back ground checks. The problem is, it won't keep them out of criminals hands. Anyone who believes that is fooling themselves. 3 Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Sometimes you'll find it in the strangest places. Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns. "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level. http://www.iberkshir...eapons-ban.html I guess that is one reason to keep marijuana criminalized. Link to comment
NUance Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 I am a gun owner and an advocate of owning guns. I will fight like hell to keep that freedom. However, I can see restrictions on these types of guns. And, I have no problem with back ground checks. The problem is, it won't keep them out of criminals hands. Anyone who believes that is fooling themselves. Couldn't have said it better myself. 1 : Link to comment
Decked Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 If the government wants my guns go ahead and take 'em. Link to comment
knapplc Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 If used correctly, guns can make beautiful things: Link to comment
Junior Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 I am a gun owner and an advocate of owning guns. I will fight like hell to keep that freedom. However, I can see restrictions on these types of guns. And, I have no problem with back ground checks. The problem is, it won't keep them out of criminals hands. Anyone who believes that is fooling themselves. Certainly not always, however, it seems to me that making them more difficult to get would prevent some crime: http://news.yahoo.com/police-colo-shooting-suspect-bought-guns-legally-083528305.html James Holmes is accused of carrying out one of the worst mass shootings in recent U.S. history, but police say there was nothing illegal about the guns and ammunition he allegedly used during a Colorado movie theater attack. "All the weapons that he possessed, he possessed legally," Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said. "And all the clips that he possessed, he possessed legally. And all the ammunition that he possessed, he possessed legally." Link to comment
rawhide Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Criminals don't care about laws until they are caught. Exceptions could be made for the crimes of "passion". http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-dec-2011/data-tables/table-1 not a FBI page: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/05/us-usa-firearms-backgroundchecks-idUSTRE80407P20120105 Crime is trending downward and gun sales are trending up. I wonder: Do Rep or Dems own firearm manufacturing/ importing. Whom benefits most by this election hysteria. Certainly isn't moi. Link to comment
walksalone Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Gun control, being able to hit what you are aiming at... Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I am a gun owner and an advocate of owning guns. I will fight like hell to keep that freedom. However, I can see restrictions on these types of guns. And, I have no problem with back ground checks. The problem is, it won't keep them out of criminals hands. Anyone who believes that is fooling themselves. Certainly not always, however, it seems to me that making them more difficult to get would prevent some crime: http://news.yahoo.co...-083528305.html James Holmes is accused of carrying out one of the worst mass shootings in recent U.S. history, but police say there was nothing illegal about the guns and ammunition he allegedly used during a Colorado movie theater attack. "All the weapons that he possessed, he possessed legally," Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said. "And all the clips that he possessed, he possessed legally. And all the ammunition that he possessed, he possessed legally." Never has and never will. Gun control is no different than the war on drugs. It does nothing but empower the criminal.. and no I don't smoke, snort, shut up or pop. Lies have been spread all the way back to the "old west". The old west was never wild like they try to portray. Link to comment
strigori Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 At this point trying to outlaw guns is beyond pointless, there are, what, more guns than people in this country? We just need to focus on keeping them out of the hands of felons. Going reactionary on gun control after someone with no form of criminal history commits a crime is just stupid. That is a danger of living in a free society. Sometimes crap happens. And there is nothing you can do about it. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 At this point trying to outlaw guns is beyond pointless, there are, what, more guns than people in this country? We just need to focus on keeping them out of the hands of felons. Going reactionary on gun control after someone with no form of criminal history commits a crime is just stupid. That is a danger of living in a free society. Sometimes crap happens. And there is nothing you can do about it. The point isn't the gun, though they want you to think it is, the point is the person themselves.. We should look to understand what drove that person to do what he/she just did. I think there are factors that nobody even wants to consider.. mainly because these "factors" don't affect everyone, so they think it can't be them. The "factors" I speak of? TV, movies, music.. All of these are factors that can push a person over the edge. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 If you ban guns and try to take them away, there will be more violence than there is right now with the freedom to own guns. I have no problem if you want to put restrictions on who can buy assault rifles....etc. But, that won't keep them out of anyone's hands who really wants them and is a criminal mind. Link to comment
Recommended Posts