Seriously. In the wake of yet another mass shooting, we get calls to do something that would have not changed the outcome of said shooting - like preventing no-fly list people from obtaining weapons. How about some "jihadi control" instead? But maybe we should ban "crock pots" as Obama called the pressure cookers used by the Tsarnev brothers. - Or perhaps he knew about the WMD material cooked up by wife with one of those things. I'm just not sure anymore. Theatre of the absurd.

Let's start with a ban on ammunition, easy to bring about and it would go a long way toward preventing mass shootings. And yes we should absolutely confiscate ALL firearms.

We should mandatory VERY long prison sentences for any one found to be in possession of a firearm.

Of course the gun fetishists will whine and moan and declare this absurd.......the time is coming. You are going to lose your guns

Unconstitutional and that is a good thing it will never happen.

Reminds me of the Christian predictions that Jesus' second coming is any day now. They've been saying that for about a thousand years.

You can't ban ammunition - violates that Second Amendment. http://www.islandlawblog.com/washington-d-c-ammunition-ban-violates-second-amendment/.

And even if an ammo ban wasn't unconstitutional, Congress can't pass a law requiring universal background checks, which is supported by 80% of the population. Do you really think they are going to pass an ammo ban?

Paul predicts the return within the lifetimes of some of his correspondents.

with that.

Then tell me how you'll keep 13 states from shutting it all down after you get those members of the House and Senate.

And as for confiscation...well, not in the lifetime of anyone on DU. Or their grandkids.

You really are coming for our guns.

There is no fix for that unfortunately

They screwed the pooch on being able to ban AR-15s because after the AWB sunsetted, the demand was high and now they are in common legal use throughout the nation. Any ban now fails the test of constitutionality.

And it's not an actual ban. It requires modification from what is standard, which is how they get around the whole ban thing.

In IL, some municipalities have their local laws, and that's what the SCOTUS refused to hear. You can move one block in the suburbs, be in a different suburb, and legally own where you couldn't before. It's a bit of a mess.

the level of scrutiny made it OK.

Also because there were alternatives that could be purchased that were quite similar in function (i.e other SAs).

NY SAFE compliant semi-automatic rifles with no pistol grip. Funny thing is they still operate exactly as the ones with a pistol grip. In Australia, they just went to a pump action AR type rifle.

almost exclusively in the Olympics and the World Cup are banned as "assault weapons"

The Walther GSP is a popular choice for the various 25 m pistol shooting events governed by the ISSF (some contested at the Olympic games). The .22 LR variant was used for the 25 m Pistol (formerly "Sport Pistol&quot , 25 m Standard Pistol while the .32 caliber variant was used in the 25 m Center-Fire Pistol event.

Under the N.Y Safe Act the Walther GSP is now classified as an assault weapon under N.Y state law. It is also classified as an assault weapon under Chicago and Cook County laws due to the magazine being outside of the pistol grip.

Be hosting the Olympics with all of those assault weapons being banned.

I think some exemptions were allowed, temporarily.

over here maybe?

So, not quite as bad as transatlantic travel.

edit to add http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/jan/17/comment.gdnsport3

Hey dscntnt, the supreme court agrees with your OP premise, at least for them that can hold > 10 rounds.

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday handed a legal victory to advocates of banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons.

By leaving a suburban Chicago gun control law intact, the court gave a boost to efforts aimed at imposing such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings.

Police say the attackers in San Bernardino used such weapons as did the gunman who attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic two weeks ago in Colorado.

The court declined to take up a challenge to a 2013 law passed in Highland Park, Illinois that bans the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than ten rounds in a single ammunition clip or magazine. It specifically includes certain rifles, including those resembling the AR-15 and AK-47 assault-style firearms.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-leaves-assault-weapons-ban-intact-n475421

...maintaining your standard of (ir)relevance.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=181970

dscntnt: It's good to see that you're....maintaining your standard of (ir)relevance.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=181970

Dunno what you're driving at, by posting a link to a rebuttal of your OP about a police one survey, you giving a bogus phony 'poll' as having any sort of credibitily. But since you bring it up, I'll paste my report here:

(jimmy wrote, nov 23, 2015): Only a gullible sap would say such a thing in light of the skewed results; factcheck debunks your 'police one' study as unscientific, since it was an internet poll as well as by invitation apparently to members only:

The ad includes an image of a police badge with a reference to a March {2013} survey by a group called PoliceOne. com, a news and resource site for law enforcement officers. The survey wasn’t a scientific poll that aimed to gather responses from a random sample of the nation’s police officers.
Rather, it was a self-selected Internet poll, in which more than 15,000 of PoliceOne.com’s 400,000 registered members chose to respond, either because of email solicitation or a link to the survey on the PoliceOne.com website.
And there was no question asking whether “background checks” would have an “effect on violent crime.”

In fact, the survey methodology says that a question on criminal background checks was removed “due to flaws with the question details, highlighted by a handful of users.” We spoke with Jon Hughes, vice president of content for the Praetorian Group, which owns PoliceOne. com, about the NRA ads’ claim. He told us he was “unclear where that came from specifically.” He said that the question that was dropped — because of “an error in how it was phrased” — couldn’t be the source either, as the data didn’t match the claim. Hughes said fact-check articles by the Washington Post and Slate.com on the ad “did a pretty good job of analyzing the data to try to determine where that claim came from.” http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/nra-misrepresents-police-survey-legislation/

And what's up with the flim flamming, discontent irony sarcasm? since you posted re police one survey on this same may 2013 thread which I did with the same factcheck link; you like to continue to post disinformation every year or so?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=123586

...of irrelevance.

Many states (like California or Florida) have strong preemption laws (unlike IL) on their books. Basically local governments can't pass firearms laws more strict than the existing state law.

The court not hearing this case doesn't affect most other states due to preemption. There is also nothing to stop IL from just tweaking their preemption law and that city's ban would instantly be voided.

If I remember right this IL city's misdemeanor ban only applies to residents, it can't be enforced against non-residents or people commuting through their city because Illinois' preemption law specifically doesn't allow that.

We should ban bullets. You can have all the guns you want, but not the bullets that go into them.

Just like you could not tax printers ink so high to basically ban 1st amendment speech rights. Oh sure, you can have a printing press but no ink. Unconstitutional.

Ban bullets, tax bullets $100/each, make gun owners pay for all gun injuries and deaths...

Pro-control has numerous thought and logic free zones.
It's easier to think with your glands.

Over the years, we've seen the same ideas recycled so many times, as if it's new and a "brilliant solution" the stupid "Gun Humpers" never thought of. Chris Rock should charge the gun control people royalties on his stand up routine from 30 years ago.

Then they all go back to take a nap until the next time they feel "brilliant". Heck, even the "Hosts" of Bansalot only show up once a month or so, when there are new gun cartoons somebody else thought of and drew.

I guess they figure Bloomberg and his paid stooges will do it all for them so they can claim victory.

In the meantime gun owners just keep moving ahead and violent crime continues to drop.

We've had them tell us that they don't want "those votes" and they'd rather lose a seat than compromise their "principles".

Of course it's always somebody else district or election and they never, ever reach for their checkbook to put their money where their mouth is.

Why would they? That's Bloomberg's job. You know, getting incumbents unelected.

Can we just leave all that ban something, tax it to death, end castle doctrine, hunt down Zimmerman and have him drawn and quartered talk out of this election season? As much as I'd like to, we don't have to put on the curb like an old lawn chair but can we just leave it in the shed like the old lawn chair? Or maybe in the renovated attic along with the in-laws great aunt who thinks the garden gnomes are alive and speak French?

Let's just see how it goes if the whole topic spends some time getting acquainted my leisure suit and 1970's velvet tux.

I know there's folks who have a sad if we don't demand a ban at every turn for any excuse or none at all, but can they restrain themselves until the votes are counted?

Since you seem like a t-shirt kind of guy...