Police officers across the nation stand against Assault weapons, and illegal hand guns what say you?
Police officers across the nation are all against the ban lift of assault weapons of 04.
Police officers put their life on the line everyday, and they are not equipped to deal with the nut jobs who come across assault rifles and wanna raise hell.
Congress allowed the federal assault weapons ban to expire in September 2004. Since then, more than 40 police officers have been killed or wounded nationwide with assault rifles. The number of assaults of law enforcement officers with firearms in Pennsylvania has increased by 76 percent between 2002 and 2007, fueled partly by easier access to assault weapons.
The assault weapon ban apparently was proven to be effective.
The Governor said the ban had proven effective. After it went into effect in 1995, the number of assault weapons traced to crimes by the ATF dropped 66 percent, but one year after it expired, the bureau recorded an 11 percent increase in crime gun tracings of AK-47-type assault weapons.
This shines some new light on how we need regulation. Police officers put their life on the line everyday, and they certainly aren't equipped or paid enough to deal with people with assault rifles.
Assault rifles are made, and are intended for one purpose. Intense combat, or wars. Not in our civilian streets with law enforcement armed with pea shooters compared to our criminals.
What everyone think?
Or am I just a stupid Liberal who cares about the well being of our law enforcement, and where our tax dollars go?
(I'm not Liberal, but I know tons of neo cons will think so.)
Our country is already outside the boundaries of the constitution.
I just don't think its right that assault weapons are legal, yet our law enforcement isn't built to combat it. Hell at least the state governments can arm our law enforcement something besides pea shooters. They're up against people with automatic pistols, SKS rifles, AK-47 rifles and no telling what else.
Our government was never meant to be this big, but it is. The whole point of the people having the right to bear arms was because the civilians were the military. This country was never suppose to have a military, outside of the civilian militia. Because obviously in a small government a full organized military isn't necessary.
I do believe our constitution needs to be renewed to reflect the times. Not just on the 2nd amendment.
- Big ELv 61 decade agoBest Answer
I am one of those from my cold dead hands people. If the government has absolute power, then they will be absolutely corrupt. The 2nd Amendment was to protect Americans from government. The word assault weapons is BS. They are all semi-automatic rifles. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. You will not get the guns out of the hands of criminals, thus all the laws they want to write will not work.
- 45 autoLv 71 decade ago
As a gun owner of many Ar 15 And AK 47s and others .There are laws in using fire arms in the commission of a felony but the liberal courts want to protect the criminal and convict the victim till the crime is punished with death penalty and not probation. With all the guns out there baning then will only disarm the victims as the criminal won't follow the law.
- Jerry HLv 71 decade ago
The anti-gun fanatics who claim the police are on their side never poll actual, rank-and-file police officers. All the speeches and claims come from police chiefs, who are appointed by city councils, and police union leaders, who admit they never poll the rank-and-file.
All the law enforcement officers I know (and I've trained with and trained more than a few) are in favor of private gun ownership. A couple of Sheriff's deputies even taught me and my wife to use their submachineguns. They know the truth of the saying, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."Source(s): I'm a firearms instructor and former member of ASLET.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Banning assault weapons is not the answer, enforcing the laws we
already have in place is the key that starts to lock the door and keeping
that door locked on those that intend harm through illegal use.There is
right now laws in place that outlaws fully automatic weapons. So to
write more legislation just encumbers the system more.
I am in full support of enforcing present laws dealing with this issue,
But cannot find support for new legislation.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- kennith wLv 41 decade ago
Machine gun: A crew served weapon with the sole purpose of discharging large amounts of munitions, that only functions automatically. This may or may not be man portable, and is not required to be fitted with any form of shoulder stock, or direct method of operation.
Automatic Rifle: A man portable, single operator firearm that only functions automatically, and is chambered for what is generally considered a rifle cartridge, being also equipped with some form of a shoulder stock.
Sub-machine gun: A man portable, single operator firearm that is chambered in a cartridge generally considered to be for pistols, and may be select-fire or automatic only, and is equipped with some form of shoulder stock to be properly termed.
Assault rifle: A man portable, single operator firearm that features some form of select-fire functionality and is chambered for what is generally considered a rifle cartridge, as well as being equipped with some form of shoulder stock.
Semi-automatic rifle: A man portable, single operator firearm that only fires one round at a time, provides no other functionality, and is chambered for what is generally considered to be a rifle round, as well as being equipped with some form of shoulder stock.
Bolt action rifle: A man portable, single operator firearm that provides the functionality to fire a cartridge, and only provides operator assisted mechanical loading of the chamber via a directly actuated bolt carrier or bolt, and is equipped with some form of shoulder stock. These are chambered for what is generally considered to be a rifle round as well.
Single shot rifle: A man portable, single operator firearm that only provides the functionality of firing a cartridge, and can be chambered for any cartridge, but is equipped with some form of shoulder stock.
All of these weapons with the exception of the machine gun and the single shot rifle should have rifled bores in order to be properly termed.
I've got some bad news for your position. Those firearms you refer to are not assault rifles. They are normal, every day semi-automatic rifles like any old Remington or Winchester.
Here are the differences: They are simply less accurate, chambered for a wimpy cartridge that was designed for hunting rats and other small pests, and they tend to look mean. That is ALL.
Do your research properly, and do not spread ignorance.
- 1 decade ago
To answer one of your questions, yes you do sound liberal. Liberals have no regard for the constitution and they would like to take away most of those rights it gives us.
We wouldn't need to ban any guns if "LIBERALS" would help enforce tougher punishments and encourage prisons to be a place of punishment. Most of the time these freaks the cops arrest are back on the street in 48 hours so they are never really punished for the crimes they commit. And lets face it, the law abiding people are not the ones using assault weapons on the cops.
So here's an idea, instead of taking guns off the street, why don't we take criminals off the street and put them in prisons that are designed for punishment. Kind of like Arizona did. http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I don't own any assault rifles but my Glock 20c is quite effective as a home security system.
Please try and understand that guns don't animate themselves and go on killing sprees. You will NEVER keep guns out of the hands of criminals no matter how many guns you ban or how many laws you pass.
Don't penalize good citizens for what criminals do!
- Anonymous1 decade ago
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”
So does the Supreme Court. You see they don't leave out the word "people" in the interpretation
- TinaLv 44 years ago
That is very far fetched. I doubt a gun owner would vote to have someone to take there gun that they bought with there money. there probably will be more restrictions on who CAN LEGALLY own a gun. there will be any sort of gun ban.
- 1 decade ago
I think that assault weapons are in a different category from the right to bear arms clause of our constitution. The reasoning that they can be used for hunting is wrong headed although someone like Chenney probably needs automatic weapons to hit anything other than his hunting mate. Illegal handguns are just that. Illegal. Not all are. I say we have to have a license to drive to protect others on the road. We have to vitrify our ID, and prove that we can operate a vehicle. If you cannot, then if you drive it is illegal. Similarly gun owners should be tested, ID verified, and documented. If not you run the risk of violating the law.