Well there you have it: Assault weapons ban

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Owning guns isn't a big deal. Everyone should be able to. Eventually even I will want to own a gun.

But imho some guns (or should I say weapons) just shouldn't be in the hands of private individuals. Can't we all agree on at least that much?

Where we draw the line is anyone's guess. But this isn't some issue where opposing sides should just draw up false choices...common sense should prevail. Gun ownership rights isn't the problem, the TYPE of guns that should be available to private ownership is.

I am sorry if the opinion above isn't filled with vitrol or anger/frustration...gun rights just doesn't get it up for me. shrug.

In my mind, the 2nd amendment is there to protect the citizens from the inability to stand up to its government. Which means the citizens should have access to just about any weapon made since the government's soldiers certainly do. Do you think semi automatic assault weapons in the hands of private citizens are really going to stand up to the armored vehicles the soldiers have access to? It actually is a good argument that the citizens should have access to something that can take out an M1, that can go through soldier's armor, that has a chance to take down a helicopter.

Back in the day, a muzzle loader could take out the most advanced form of soldier wearing the most advance form of armor. This is no longer true. So the 2nd amendment in my eyes, on what it is meant to be should actually allow the private citizens access to MUCH more.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
You sure or do you think? It could have easily arrived in a cargo container from overseas bought and paid for by a cartel.

Johnny Whackjob has the money to buy an assault rifle from a Cartel to shoot up a School Yard?

If you're going to make a case against "assault weapons", then make it. Bring some facts, statistics, anything. If you're not going to bring any facts to back up your position, what's the point?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
You sure or do you think? It could have easily arrived in a cargo container from overseas bought and paid for by a cartel.

Johnny Whackjob has the money to buy an assault rifle from a Cartel to shoot up a School Yard?

If you're going to make a case against "assault weapons", then make it. Bring some facts, statistics, anything. If you're not going to bring any facts to back up your position, what's the point?

Hey if I lived in a rural area I'd love to have an assault rifle because they are cool to shoot but for home defense, a pistol would more than suffice. The problem with allowing assault rifles is that it would flood the market with them allowing criminals easier access to them than if it was cost prohibitive like having to buy imported illegal Assault Rifles from some criminal org..

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
You sure or do you think? It could have easily arrived in a cargo container from overseas bought and paid for by a cartel.

Johnny Whackjob has the money to buy an assault rifle from a Cartel to shoot up a School Yard?

If you're going to make a case against "assault weapons", then make it. Bring some facts, statistics, anything. If you're not going to bring any facts to back up your position, what's the point?

Hey if I lived in a rural area I'd love to have an assault rifle because they are cool to shoot but for home defense, a pistol would more than suffice. The problem with allowing assault rifles is that it would flood the market with them allowing criminals easier access to them than if it was cost prohibitive like having to buy imported illegal Assault Rifles from some criminal org..

One could make the same argument about anything used in crime. Getaways would be much harder if you banned cars.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte
Owning guns isn't a big deal. Everyone should be able to. Eventually even I will want to own a gun.

But imho some guns (or should I say weapons) just shouldn't be in the hands of private individuals. Can't we all agree on at least that much?

Where we draw the line is anyone's guess. But this isn't some issue where opposing sides should just draw up false choices...common sense should prevail. Gun ownership rights isn't the problem, the TYPE of guns that should be available to private ownership is.

I am sorry if the opinion above isn't filled with vitrol or anger/frustration...gun rights just doesn't get it up for me. shrug.

The more dangerous and "scary" guns that I'm assuming that you're referring to are just not used in crimes, especially by law abiding people. So why do you want to keep these guns out of the hands of private individuals? I just don't get it, why are people so afraid of someone owning a weapon that will most likely never be used to harm them?

It is an interesting question. Assault weapons dont account for the majority of gun crimes in this country. I think it is a pretty small %. So lets ban a gun that is rarely used in a crime? More failed logic.

I can't really disagree with the logic of either of your posts. But maybe I will try

In my head I liken the issue to owning automobiles. We have the 4 bangers on the road that are just as dangerous as the H2's and/or the rice-mobiles. But then you have the super-duper speedy cars that are flashy but still dangerous in the wrong hands. Then you have things like armored vehicles or big rig trucks that will plow over anything in its way. On top of those vehicles you have all of the military vehicles that the regular public doesnt (and shouldnt) have access to. Police vehicles that are off limit to public use, I am sure there are others types I am not thinking of.

If there are weapons built and designed for military or police use, why would we want the general public to have access to them? I am asking this based on the fact that in order to be in the military and drive military vehicles you have to be trained and meet certain requirements (mental and physical) to do so. In order to drive a police car you have to be a policeman and all the training (mental and physical) requirements that come along with it. etc etc

I guess in my mind I can see why we would want to regulate the use of these military weapons. Like any other military or police tool.

 

[Modelworks]

Two things this will accomplish is to keep the guns out of the hands of the people that were not a threat anyway, the legal owners, and to raise the price on the guns for illegal owners who bought them anyway, black market gun dealers are loving this. So what good does the law do ?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Two things this will accomplish is to keep the guns out of the hands of the people that were not a threat anyway, the legal owners, and to raise the price on the guns for illegal owners who bought them anyway, black market gun dealers are loving this. So what good does the law do ?

raise the price high enough and black market buyers will go with a cheaper alternative?

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: OrByte


I guess in my mind I can see why we would want to regulate the use of these military weapons. Like any other military or police tool.

That would be fine if they said you could go to some training test and get a permit. Instead they are removing the right completely.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: shocksyde
What is it with people and guns in this country? Yes, I know, it's a right.

I'm with you. I don't get it. It's like you're defending a body part. I just don't get the fanatacism revolving around guns.

Change the assault to the 1st amendment and tell us your opinion on that. It is only speech right? Well guns are a primary defense against the tyranny of govt and defense against criminals. Without the gun you can toss out the rest of your rights.

Right, because we constantly take up arms against the government. That didn't work out so well in 1863...

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: shocksyde
What is it with people and guns in this country? Yes, I know, it's a right.

I'm with you. I don't get it. It's like you're defending a body part. I just don't get the fanatacism revolving around guns.

What I don't get is people like you two, that get so confused by people being upset that they are having things taken from them and calling them fanatics, while completely ignoring the fanatacism of the anti gun zealots.

So shoot me.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
You sure or do you think? It could have easily arrived in a cargo container from overseas bought and paid for by a cartel.

Johnny Whackjob has the money to buy an assault rifle from a Cartel to shoot up a School Yard?

If you're going to make a case against "assault weapons", then make it. Bring some facts, statistics, anything. If you're not going to bring any facts to back up your position, what's the point?

Hey if I lived in a rural area I'd love to have an assault rifle because they are cool to shoot but for home defense, a pistol would more than suffice. The problem with allowing assault rifles is that it would flood the market with them allowing criminals easier access to them than if it was cost prohibitive like having to buy imported illegal Assault Rifles from some criminal org..

One could make the same argument about anything used in crime. Getaways would be much harder if you banned cars.

This is my feeling about the situation, I'd prefer that my fat drunk ass neighbor didn't own one. Unfortunately he has the same right as a paramilitary whack job like winnar or Butterbean so if they can own one drunk fat ass can own one and that's scarier to me than being home invaded.

 

[winnar111]

Obama flip flopped on guns after flip flopping on guns 8 months ago? No wai!

Lefties should just stick with the story of guns compensating for small dicks. Of course, then it would be a health care expense under Obamacare. :laugh:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: shocksyde
What is it with people and guns in this country? Yes, I know, it's a right.

I'm with you. I don't get it. It's like you're defending a body part. I just don't get the fanatacism revolving around guns.

Change the assault to the 1st amendment and tell us your opinion on that. It is only speech right? Well guns are a primary defense against the tyranny of govt and defense against criminals. Without the gun you can toss out the rest of your rights.

Right, because we constantly take up arms against the government. That didn't work out so well in 1863...

Here is the key detail. They were able to. Without a gun the South wouldnt have been able to stand up.

You dont constantly take up arms against a govt anyways. I'd expect we do it once and remove said govt.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Owning guns isn't a big deal. Everyone should be able to. Eventually even I will want to own a gun.

But imho some guns (or should I say weapons) just shouldn't be in the hands of private individuals. Can't we all agree on at least that much?

Where we draw the line is anyone's guess. But this isn't some issue where opposing sides should just draw up false choices...common sense should prevail. Gun ownership rights isn't the problem, the TYPE of guns that should be available to private ownership is.

I am sorry if the opinion above isn't filled with vitrol or anger/frustration...gun rights just doesn't get it up for me. shrug.

It isn't filled with any logic either since AW ban are cosmetic changes and would never stop a criminal, who by definition deosnt respect the law, from having or modifying one in the first place. It's a nefarious attempt, only to condition public, one step at a time, to their ultimate goal of total bans for law abiding citizens.

Same slippery slope will also occur with the AP argument. The 300 winmag or better, a deer round, will penetrate any body armor in the universe. But congress will start will Pistol AP rounds, only later, to go after all big game hunting rounds, which they 'forgot' about effectively destroying hunting.

"Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move. ... Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." - Charles Krauthammer "Disarm the Citizenry," Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: OrByte
Owning guns isn't a big deal. Everyone should be able to. Eventually even I will want to own a gun.

But imho some guns (or should I say weapons) just shouldn't be in the hands of private individuals. Can't we all agree on at least that much?

Where we draw the line is anyone's guess. But this isn't some issue where opposing sides should just draw up false choices...common sense should prevail. Gun ownership rights isn't the problem, the TYPE of guns that should be available to private ownership is.

I am sorry if the opinion above isn't filled with vitrol or anger/frustration...gun rights just doesn't get it up for me. shrug.

In my mind, the 2nd amendment is there to protect the citizens from the inability to stand up to its government. Which means the citizens should have access to just about any weapon made since the government's soldiers certainly do. Do you think semi automatic assault weapons in the hands of private citizens are really going to stand up to the armored vehicles the soldiers have access to? It actually is a good argument that the citizens should have access to something that can take out an M1, that can go through soldier's armor, that has a chance to take down a helicopter.

Back in the day, a muzzle loader could take out the most advanced form of soldier wearing the most advance form of armor. This is no longer true. So the 2nd amendment in my eyes, on what it is meant to be should actually allow the private citizens access to MUCH more.

Interesting perspective.

But I counter that with the fact that even a well armed citizenry will never overcome a well armed, well trained, and well experienced military force.

I just don't see that happening nor do I see this type of scenario ever becoming reality.

Take the "Ownership Rights" out of the equation because no one is violating your Right to own A GUN. What is really happening here (imho) is an attempt to draw the line at which guns should be legal for individual/personal use. I think there is a legit argument to be made here. Are assault weapons (As built and intended) appropriate for personal individual use? Was not the intent of the assault weapon for military and/or police use? ie used by "trained professionals?"

 

[palehorse]

nvm..

 

[Xavier434]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I know I am really upset about illegal anything getting across our borders. Knowing that, I understand why the Mexicans would be upset with our weapons crossing their borders illegally. The real question is whether or not a ban like this will work to reduce the problem. There are some solid arguments on both sides of the fence.

I think I would rather the US just increase border security though.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Zebo
It's a nefarious attempt, only to condition public, one step at a time, to their ultimate goal of total bans for law abiding citizens.

And that isn't a slippery slope argument?

We don't make laws in order to "stop a criminal" we make laws in order to ensure the safety and "civility" of our populace. I am being short in my response here but hopefully you get the point.

Example: There are laws against Kidnapping. But that never stops a person from kidnapping someone else does it? Should we just not have a law against it?

Kidnapping laws are designed to outline "civility" of the populace as well as to authorize a punishment if you do so. Not to stop a criminal from kidnapping.

Does kidnapping law serve as a deterence? I am sure that the PUNISHMENT that results if someone kidnaps another is the deterence, but I doubt that the kidnapping law itself is enough of a deterence.

 

[Zebo]

Guys this is my last POST in this thread. I warned you months ago and conservatives like shinner laughed at me.

AWB is a done DEAL!!! If you want one or ever wanted one GET THEM NOW, today. It's a great investment even if you never shoot it.

Here is last YEA vote on ban
Actual Senate voting results

Number of Democrats voting for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act: 50/53 (94.3%)

Number of Republicans voting for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act: 45/47 (95.7%)

And you think this congress won't do the same??!?!?!

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Zebo
It's a nefarious attempt, only to condition public, one step at a time, to their ultimate goal of total bans for law abiding citizens.

And that isn't a slippery slope argument?

We don't make laws in order to "stop a criminal" we make laws in order to ensure the safety and "civility" of our populace. I am being short in my response here but hopefully you get the point.

Example: There are laws against Kidnapping. But that never stops a person from kidnapping someone else does it? Should we just not have a law against it?

Kidnapping laws are designed to outline "civility" of the populace as well as to authorize a punishment if you do so. Not to stop a criminal from kidnapping.

Does kidnapping law serve as a deterence? I am sure that the PUNISHMENT that results if someone kidnaps another is the deterence, but I doubt that the kidnapping law itself is enough of a deterence.

Murder is already illegal.

This is akin to banning white cargo vans to stop kidnapping.

 

[NeoV]

can we wake up and realize what this is? This is simply PR for the democrats - look, we've re-instated (or are going to try and reinstate) the ban on assault weapons - it will satisfy - for some length of time - those on the left that are anti-gun.

The actual impact to law-abiding citizens? Pretty much zero, other than the likes of people here crying about it.

This, if reinstated, is not the first step to banning guns altogether - that simply will not ever happen in this country, the NRA has way too much money in the pockets of politicians all over, and no democrat in any position of power is stupid enough to even suggest it.

As for the whole Mexican portion of the discussion -the fact of the matter is that gun violence in Mexico is drastically up over the past 2 years, any a large number of these shoot-outs involve 'assault' weapons readily available in the United States.

Free speech is a constitutional right, but that doesn't mean there aren't some limits on it. Not being able to buy a gun that kill someone from a mile away, or not being able to buy ammo that is specifically made to pierce military-grade body armor, isn't going to affect anyone other than mentally.

Of course the biggest issue remains - how do we keep criminals in this country from being able to constantly get guns whenever they want? Not a single one of you pro-gun zealots (and again, for the record, I'm not in favor of a gun ban in this country) have a single idea on how to do that, or on how to reduce the level of gun violence in this country - which we all should be ashamed of.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Zebo
It's a nefarious attempt, only to condition public, one step at a time, to their ultimate goal of total bans for law abiding citizens.

And that isn't a slippery slope argument?

We don't make laws in order to "stop a criminal" we make laws in order to ensure the safety and "civility" of our populace. I am being short in my response here but hopefully you get the point.

Example: There are laws against Kidnapping. But that never stops a person from kidnapping someone else does it? Should we just not have a law against it?

Kidnapping laws are designed to outline "civility" of the populace as well as to authorize a punishment if you do so. Not to stop a criminal from kidnapping.

Does kidnapping law serve as a deterence? I am sure that the PUNISHMENT that results if someone kidnaps another is the deterence, but I doubt that the kidnapping law itself is enough of a deterence.

Murder is already illegal.

This is akin to banning white cargo vans to stop kidnapping.

Actually I think it would be more akin to using a date rape drug in order to kidnap someone (Which I believe is illegal to have without a legit license or Rx.) But I see we are going to be at an impass. cheers!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
You sure or do you think? It could have easily arrived in a cargo container from overseas bought and paid for by a cartel.

Johnny Whackjob has the money to buy an assault rifle from a Cartel to shoot up a School Yard?

If you're going to make a case against "assault weapons", then make it. Bring some facts, statistics, anything. If you're not going to bring any facts to back up your position, what's the point?

Hey if I lived in a rural area I'd love to have an assault rifle because they are cool to shoot but for home defense, a pistol would more than suffice. The problem with allowing assault rifles is that it would flood the market with them allowing criminals easier access to them than if it was cost prohibitive like having to buy imported illegal Assault Rifles from some criminal org..

1. Please define the term "assault rifle," as you see it.

2. Semi-automatic "assault rifles" in the U.S. are actually much more expensive than fully automatic versions of the same weapons sold almost anywhere else in the world. Did you know that you can buy a full-auto AK47 for the equivalent of $5 in some countries?

3. a) Please explain to me the functional difference between a Bushmaster semi-automatic AR-15 with a 20" barrel, and a Remington 700 varmint rifle in .223 with a 20" barrel. b) Why is one of them considered an "assault rifle" while the other is not?

4. a) Please list more than one example of "assault rifles" being used on a schoolyard full of children in the last 100 years. b) Follow that up with a listing or the statistics describing the number of actual crimes committed using "assault rifles" in the last 10-100 years.

I think everyone here should take a stab at #1... Please provide your own perception of what should qualify as an "assault rifle."

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Modelworks
They have already been making it hard with the ammo registration requirements, a covert form of gun control.
This is the next step.
Next under attack will be concealed carry permits.

Bolded for bullshit.

Right and all the Obama fanatics during the campaign told us the gun issue was dead. Not even a month into his term and he is looking to reimplement one of the most futile pieces of gun legislation known to man. Sorry if we dont take your already proven wrong opinion seriously.

Who was that? Certainly not Obama himself. Anyone who has been paying attention knows he has always supported the assault weapons ban. Sorry, it must really stink to be wrong constantly.

PS In order for me to be proven wrong already :roll: ... there would already be a handgun ban in effect. Since there isn't, people like you are just, as per usual, being blinded by hatred and FEAR.

Seems to be it's the gun grabbers who are being controlled by fear.

 

[Jack Flash]

I still don't understand the need for assault rifles.

I think handguns are fine. Hunting rifles... okay. But what's the need for a semi/automatic rifle?