Assault Weapon Ban needs to be retroactive

[Anonymous]

I understand why considering logistics bans usually are not retroactive but in this situation I really think certain types of guns should not only be banned but the ban should be retroactive. Individuals who have acquired them in the past should have a certain amount of time to relinquish them.

[Anonymous]

I disagree.

[Anonymous]

I agree 100%. Weapons of war do not belong in the hands of civilians.

[Anonymous]

They are weapons of war? These are the exact same weapons used by the military?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are weapons of war? These are the exact same weapons used by the military?

Not the exact same. But they aren't exactly weapons of hunters or target shooters, either.

[Anonymous]

Ridiculous idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous idea.

I get that you don't like the idea. But what about it is "ridiculous"? Or do you think those are the same things?

[Anonymous]

It's not ridiculous. It's a variation on what Australia did, which involved a buyback rather than a retroactive ban.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are weapons of war? These are the exact same weapons used by the military?

Not the exact same. But they aren't exactly weapons of hunters or target shooters, either.

Does everyone who buys them plan on hunting humans?

[Anonymous]

I plan on hunting a human who break into my house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not ridiculous. It's a variation on what Australia did, which involved a buyback rather than a retroactive ban.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws

So our extremely wealthy gubmant buys them back with all their new tax revenue?

Genius.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I plan on hunting a human who break into my house.

And YOU are the reason people want to lock these guns up. Totally creepy answer that makes you sound unfit to own a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I plan on hunting a human who break into my house.

And YOU are the reason people want to lock these guns up. Totally creepy answer that makes you sound unfit to own a gun.

So what you're saying is that if someone broke into your home while you were there, and God forbid when your family is there, you would not feel justified in defending them?

This is exactly what this person meant. Which is why the statement made includes "who break into my house", which, by the way, is a crime.

[Anonymous]

Why are you all assuming that people are too stupid to provide for themselves and their future, and instead need Government to do it for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I plan on hunting a human who break into my house.

And YOU are the reason people want to lock these guns up. Totally creepy answer that makes you sound unfit to own a gun.

So what you're saying is that if someone broke into your home while you were there, and God forbid when your family is there, you would not feel justified in defending them?

This is exactly what this person meant. Which is why the statement made includes "who break into my house", which, by the way, is a crime.

No, I am saying that people who talk about "hunting humans" are creepy, do not have proper respect for human life, and should not be trusted with guns. Humans are not wildlife, and that poster's comment makes him sound like those sicko soliders that went hunting Afghan civilians for sport: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/23/us-soldier-admits-killing-afghans