Well what about no Military Grade Automatic rifles
... No what?
Military forces choose weapons manufactured by various manufacturers who sell their weapons on the markets open to them (governments just happen to select them for their police and military forces, as well).
If you mean any weapon with a detachable magazine that fires in semi-automatic... then you cover what most people consider "assault" or "military" weapons. But you cover about 80% of the rifle market with that.
(But all other forms of slower firing arms) for households with people under 25 or People who dont have a proper livelihood or People with violent pasts or problem children or people who exhibit extremist behavior etc as these people are most likely to go and do a nut job shootout . . . . .
That's all difficult to determine. You would be more effective at preventing gun violence by raising the minimum driving age to 23 (give them two years to binge drink themselves to the realization that it's stupid).
The problem with this idea is that the U.S. has few standards for mental health screenings and does not have a centralized database of such records. Mental health diagnoses are some of the most controversial and varied, as well (which makes it a very, very controversial thing to base purchasing rights off of). Further - in many of these cases, these 'unstable' individuals who go on shooting sprees do not have records of being evaluated for mental illness by any professional establishment.
We don't have nationalized screening for mental illness (and it's unlikely such a screening program would pick up any but the most extreme/obvious of pathologies - the discrete ones that manifest themselves in 'snap' behavior would probably slip through).
OR perhaps limiting the Number of Automatic Firearm ammo amount/number
Pretty much useless. Manufacturing magazines is simple enough to be done in a small workshop. Honestly have considered going into the business of manufacturing less-than-legal magazine sizes if a ban gets passed. All of the meth cookers get overlooked - I'm sure authorities will be very quick to crack down on my enabling of wanton death and destruction.
I will, most certainly, ensure that I have magazines designed to support the weapon system I have as it was envisioned.
. . or if these seems too tall order how about a compulsory Gun Safety Regulation and Precaution Course for those who wants to keep fire arms?
This is more reasonable - though I think the most effective way for the government to get involved in this type of scheme is to have a tax rebate system in place on firearm safes and storage solutions. Most of the 'problem' with firearms is people who improperly store their firearms and children get a hold of them.
That said - we have licensing programs that require you to demonstrate driving proficiency to a uniformed law enforcement officer. And who is satisfied with the quality of drivers on the road?
Also I dont think most people are advocating TOTAL GUN BAN anyway.
The problem is that the people who like to spout off about what guns are and are not reasonable to own have zero experience with a firearm, to begin with. They have no idea what makes a weapon so dangerous as to be disallowed in society.
Which, to be honest, after all the training I've received and the weapons I've handled... I've yet to encounter a man-portable firearm that is currently legal to own yet is so effective at whole-sale slaughter that it should be banned.
Granted... I can legally purchase a .50 caliber browning automatic crew-serve weapon. True - it will be a semi-auto weapon... but that's just controlled by the back-plate that any competent machinist could alter to provide full auto functionality to a belt-fed anti-material rifle.
Though the cost of ammunition pretty much keeps that in check (you'd have to have thousands of dollars of ammo to have an effective combat load for that weapon...)... and you'd have to mount it onto a vehicle or something to make it mobile.
BTW I dont think anyone can take away your Second Amendment THAT easily if ever anyone can ....... it wld takes decades to do so.
People like me would not allow it to happen. There simply aren't enough gun owners in opposition to the second amendment to make the fight last long enough.
I'll be a little too honest, here, and say that I would kill thousands of people if it was necessary to preserve the 2nd amendment - whether they are armed or not. Now - the catch is that they must be an imminent threat to the 2nd amendment (doing that without, themselves, being armed is a bit difficult to imagine). Basically - what it will amount to is I'm going to own a firearm, and anyone who decides I don't need it is going to have to be willing to kill me to get it.
That will continue until they either get it through their heads that I don't shoot things that aren't a threat and stop trying to take it, or there are simply no more people who want to take such things away left alive.
It's unfortunate that they would be so insistent... but when it comes to a contest of wills - I will be the one remaining. It's not about right and wrong, social responsibility, or anything else. I've decided that there are certain things that I will not give up in life - and the consequence of anyone deciding to attempt to remove that from me will be a contest of wills. If they are then serious enough about imposing their will, then a mortal outcome is inescapable.
If that means that, between myself and my neighbors - we decide that we are no longer willing to live under the rules and laws of the nation at large; then I back secession from the union and a declaration of an independent legal and national status. I don't want to force anyone else to live in a way that is inconsistent with their views (so long as they are non-destructive). I expect the same out of other people, and will seek independence from anyone who attempts to rule over me.
PS If its about about resisting Government Opression, I dont know but doesnt each state have a Militia group or something independent of feds?
There are state militias that are in something of a quirky status. They are recognized by some states as an organized military that can be called upon in the event of an invasion (sort of a non-state funded reserve). They are not usually recognized by the federal government as such (and affiliation with a Militia as a member of the U.S. Military will constitute a conflict of interest) - and they play a complex political game with both supporters and opponents in federal offices and agencies.
Despite the "conflict of interest" mentioned above - the militias often have many sympathizers within the military (and many more in the military who are less privy to the Militias but are in ideological agreement, unknowingly). They are also quite influential in regional politics - which puts them into a love-hate relationship with homeland security.
The reason is how militias operate. They are, generally, constructed of very passionate individuals with an overall distrust for government authority. Interestingly enough, prior-service Special Warfare Operators (Seals, Green Berets, Marine Recon, Parajumpers, etc) tend to be found in militia groups heading up training of members and overseeing their structure. In a lot of cases, the militias can be considered just as well trained and equipped as most of our special operations forces in the military when it comes to squad engagements (though they lack access to the same type of support).
The relatively paranoid atmosphere and training can breed a few wild ones that decide to misuse the training they've received. Since the Oklahoma City bombings, the more organized militias have tried to keep a much tighter eye on their members' behavior (since they are something of a fringe group, and they realize this) - but you'll always get a few that get a little crazy. Since militias tend to be a little secretive, it's not always known what crimes are committed by their members (nor can it be known exactly how involved a 'member' was... some of them are cafeteria members while others take on the training... while others fund the existence of the militia).
The thing is that militias would not necessarily be exempt from firearm bans (though I doubt that would stop them... I'm sure a lot of them have stockpiles that may be legal by tangent only). Since much of a militia's resources are comprised of the personal armaments of individuals involved - it would be likely that a highly restrictive firearms ban would provoke some kind of response from the militias.
Though I think a few states within the sphere of some of the larger militias have already started leaning the way of saying they will not enforce any new federal firearm restrictions.
Which would actually be awesome... my state would benefit hugely from companies like Remington moving in after their home environment becomes hostile.
So long as my state keeps the federal idiocy out of my life... I'm happy and have no reason to get all that upset. Sad that the role has reversed (used to be that the federal government was supposed to keep state idiocy and suppression of rights in check...).
