View Single Post
Old July 21, 2012, 08:15 PM   #28
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 8,411
An interesting observation from the Washington Post:
Quote:
Two of the top priorities for gun-control advocates are a ban on assault weapons and an expansion of required criminal background checks to include buyers at gun shows. But those measures wouldn’t have stopped James Holmes, the alleged shooter in Colorado, from buying most of his firearms. A ban on assault weapons may have blocked his purchase of an AR-15 assault rifle, but he still would have been able to buy the two pistols and shotgun he allegedly brought with him to the movie theater. All four weapons were purchased legally after background checks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...2yW_story.html

So there you have it from one of the leading proponents of gun control. A ban on "assault rifles" would have made little difference. Of course, they would ban all guns.

I'll also add a link to the actual city ordinance on firearms in Aurora, Colorado. I've seen some online blogs and comments by pro-2A supporters referring to Aurora's "strict" gun laws. In all fairness, I would not use that adjective, especially in relation to ordinances like those in Chicago and Washington, D.C.
KyJim is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03546 seconds with 8 queries