SB 2017-135: Gun Control Expansion Act of 2017 (Debating)

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Henry Wallace

I hereby open the floor for debate.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

You should check the constitution, Mr. Reactionary. There is no "2nd Amendment", especially not one protecting the right of citizens to own assault weapons. However, Article I, Section 7 states the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which protects the right of the military to own weapons. Also, this act does not ban anyone from owning guns necessary for hunting or self-defense. No person needs the type of weapon that the Vegas shooter used to mercilessly gun down dozens of people and injure hundreds more from hundreds of feet away. It should not be legal to replicate this type of shooting.

I am all for the rights of Atlasians to own handguns and hunting weapons, and I am in favor of concealed carry laws. I am not in favor, however, of allowing ordinary citizens to own weapons whose sole purpose is to create as large a body count as possible in a war scenario. There is no slippery slope argument here. I give you my vow that I will never support a bill banning all guns, but this is something that is a public safety issue. We can rehash the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument all we want, but assault rifles make it significantly easier for people to kill people. I also don't believe that anyone on the No Fly List should be able to own weapons. If they're too dangerous to fly, why should they be allowed to own guns?

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

I am all for the rights of Atlasians to own handguns and hunting weapons

http://time.com/4390506/gun-control-ar-15-semiautomatic-rifles/

https://www.realtree.com/brow-tines-and-backstrap/why-you-should-use-an-ar-15-as-a-deer-rifle

http://www.alloutdoor.com/2013/06/12/hunting-ar-15/

1. Any of the animals in the Time article could've been killed with regular hunting rifles. If you need an AR-15 to kill a damn deer, you're bad at hunting and should practice your shot.

2. People giving reasons why using an AR-15 to hunt is fun doesn't make it a hunting weapon. It's an assault rifle. Its primary purpose is to kill quickly and effectively. If someone can't hunt without an AR-15 and thinks they should be legal for that reason, see point 1.

Anyway, I've been away most of the weekend because of personal reasons but I jumped back in at a weird time.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

I'd like to ask for anyone who thinks this legislation is even remotely sensible:

1. Do you know anything about hunting/have you ever been hunting?
2. Do you own a firearm?
3. Have you ever operated a firearm?
4. Have you even been in the same room as a firearm?
5. If you answered no to at least two of the above questions, what would you consider makes you knowledgeable enough to vote in favor of this legislation?

Have you ever known somebody killed in a mass shooting? Would you look into the eyes of someone who lost a relative in Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, or anywhere else and tell them that's the trade-off for hunting rights?

I know about the whole "good guy with a gun" argument, and as I stated before, I am opposed to taking firearms away from law abiding citizens. But it is in my opinion that no law abiding citizen has any use for large capacity magazine weapons, in the same way that law abiding citizens have no use for bombs. Making bombs illegal for private citizens to own wasn't a "slippery slope", it was done out of public safety concerns. This is a public safety concern.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Aye

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Aka the bill fails