“We cannot have big guns out here… We can’t have those running around out here. Those are not hunting weapons.”
“In an interview with the Daily Times Herald in Caroll, Iowa, state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer said governments should start confiscating semi-automatic rifles and other firearms.” [Daily Caller]
The son got access to the weapons after killing his mother. If they were locked up, how did he do that? Why did she have guns if, as reported, the son was unstable? Did he live with her, even part time? Of course, a lot of the details are muddied and you may be correct. I’m just trying to picture myself with an unstable adult person in my house and even possessing firearms. (If I had to choose between the guns and adult person, the person goes.)
I’m still guessing that people living with felons and possessing their own guns are kind of skirting the rule about felons and guns, but we let that go.
He killed his mother to gain access to her weapons. The gun he used to kill his mother was not hers, but one he stole prior to. Considering the lack of evidence and detail that has been reported to the public, it is probably not wise to make assumptions about how the mother was with her firearms.
Though to your other point about IEDs, the most violent school killing in US history was done with dynamite, not a gun. So I totally agree that would be a very bad thing.
The difference between a semiautomatic hunting rifle and an assault weapons is appearance. Remove the stock, forearm and change colors–voila, no assault weapon. Iowa is just trying for all semi-automatic weapons. Guess revolvers don’t kill people.
Removing all guns? Does anyone know how they kill people in Israel and Lebanon? How about Iraq? Can you say IED? Imagine an IED in place no one ever wants to see one. How’s that for a goal from your peace-loving government? (It’s not an unintended consequence. These people are not that stupid.)
Now we just need to outlaw STUPID idiots who have guns and live with “mentally ill” people or felons. One person I know has a concealed carry permit and lives with a felon. The Connecticut shooter had no guns–his idiot mother did (yes, she did learn the hard way). Do we jail these people if they survive the attack? A gun store reported refused the Connecticut shooter, BUT not his mommy.
That’s funny, I know a fair number of people who hunt with AR-15’s (which by the way, while looking like military rifles, are not military rifles), they are used often for hunting feral hogs, coyotes and other animals as well. I’ve also seen people hunt with AK-47 clones (again, these look like military rifles, but aren’t)
Change your focus to the mental health issues and leave the law abiding citizens of this country (who just happen to own guns) alone, because all your gun control laws will do (and have done) is effect those who actually follow the law, and those they don’t will continue on their happy go lucky way and will still have access to all the “Big Guns” you (for some reason) are afraid of.
techgm: I was referring to “Constitution”.
You aren’t a criminal for having bought them in the past. You simply become a criminal if you don’t turn them in. Different mechanism. It’s not unconstitutional that way.
The second amendment is an interesting one in both practical sense and contemporaneous sense. It states that a personal right to keep and bear arms (possess and use) is necessary to maintain the security of a free state. The last part of it states it shall not be infringed. None of that should be new to anybody, but it is worth a quick examination in two ways:
1. Unlike the first amendment which prohibits congress from inhibiting the rights, the second amendment states it shall not be infringed, period. Meaning no entity at any level can take the private right of an individual in regards to arms and bar it.
2. Arms, in the contemporary sense of the document, meant military weaponry in the hands of the people. For the specific reason to not allow a standing army of any government to have the capacity for greater force upon the populace, thus depriving them of the right to control the government and protect their other rights.
Libtards believe their own rhetoric.
What does hunting have to do with the second amendment?
1. Confiscating guns would be a “takings” nightmare that would blast any state or federal budget. Mine are worth from $250 to $600 each and I’m a cheapskate.
2. The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting game. It’s not even about burglars. It’s about … well, it’s about politicians like Rep Muhlbauer, to remind them that they are our servants and we are not theirs.
Laws making prior actions illegal.
Confiscating property is unrelated to ex post facto.
techgm: The what?
Are not ex post facto laws explicitly forbidden by the Constitution?
Another reason I left that God-forsake state…..