This concept of licensing is no different from getting a CDL license, which cost more than a standard license as well.
Look, I am ALL for enforcing the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment and I am not even a gun owner. I simply believe that excessive firepower is just that, for real enthusiasts who are willing to pay a high price to have the hobby. I don't ever think someone owning an AR-15 saved them anymore than owning a .45, difference has always been when some nut goes off like Colmbine, or that theater in Aurora, there is usually assault weapons to be involved for killing larger number of people, like bullet capacity alone.
I have no idea what an "assault rifle". An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. I can get a Remington semi-automatic hunting rifle (with better range) that will do the exact same thing. I can also hunt with an AR-15
NC, you can post all you like for a mile. I still am on your side, I simply think those guns need more control than other guns.
Ask any cop and they will all say they would be more worried about any hostile situation where there are guns of that type. When common citizens have more firepower than the cops, that tells me that I am right about this. Slice it however you like, but unless the S.W.A.T. team is called in, that kind of hardware isn't even brandished by the professionals.
Making it harder for a common citizen to own a gun does nothing to the criminal who already doesn't follow the law.
Just a difference of opinion my friend.
BTW, I did ask a Cop friend about Shotgun vs AK
Depends on the distance. Past a certain point the buckshot would be less effective and you might catch a round or two but probably not all of them. Up close it would be a mess but typical buckshot is basically .380 rounds. Less than a complete shot and its not much stopping power.
AR/AKs make a mess but typically people around here just spray and pray. Someone trained would be pretty dangerous but AKs are also pretty unreliable. If you did get hit they tend to bounce around and chew up your insides pretty bad. Plus a vest would be pretty worthless against a rifle.
I'd be most afraid of a shotgun loaded with slug though.
I think people get confused by what they think is a so called "assault weapon" and a fully automatic weapon.
For one, except for the government definition, there is no such thing as an assault weapon. All firearms are designed for "assault". Second, full auto weapons are already banned from new purchase. If you want one, you must apply for a Federal Firearm License and Class III exemption and then have one that's already on file with the ATF transferred to you. When you do that, you give up your 5th Amendment right to search and seizure to the ATF, who can at any time, demand to see the weapon. People who take these steps are not the folks committing crimes. nor are people like myself who carry a concealed firearm on a daily basis.
What it boils down to are guns that look and feel as if they are military issue. This is a specious argument.
Google "Mini 14" and "HK 416". Take a long hard look at them. Tell me why one should be banned while the other should not and I will tell you whatever the reason you may have is nonsense and grounded in simply not knowing a lot about guns.
They both do the same thing. Shoot a .223 round with one squeeze of the trigger. The only difference is one "looks" worse than the other.
And as former LE, as well as having dozens of friends and family in and around law enforcement, I will tell you with 100% certainly the prevailing wisdom amongst the rank and file officers is NOT gun control. That line of thinking comes from the political bodies in LE such as the Chiefs of Police Association.
Side note, Silver is correct about law enforcement. I have numerous friends that are cops ranging from small town Pa to Baltimore city/county. To my knowledge the small town actually has 1 AR for about a dozen or so cops (which is usually signed out on weekends for private use coincidentally), and my patrol officer buddy in Baltimore has only his pistol and i believe a shotgun at times but not always. However, like NC said, all guns have the ability to kill, which is why stricter background checks and required safety classes are really the only preventative measures possible, for those that arent good/healthy gun owners but dont want to be part of the criminal sect.
Being pro-guns I can see where people take "gun control" and think its going to effect criminals but really ANY gun law is for law abiding citizens which is why I dont think there should be limits on what you can have, but there can be on if youre healthy and law abiding.
The system im describing wouldnt change anything for criminals and would not be 100% effective for those small percentage of law abiding citizens either, but i think it would cut down on some of those crazies that go on shooting sprees, which in turn may actually lessen any gun control laws we do have over time, by limiting those instances to call for gun control.