Do you support the outright ban of "assault" rifles?

[pr_capone]

Simple...

yes or no.

This thread brought to you by a comment in DC stating we would be surprised by how few people in DC would support the ban. Figured we might as well get numbers.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

No, every argument you made in response that post was dealt with in the portion of the post you did not respond to. You ignored the fact that assault weapons are already banned. You ignored the fact that these laws you want will NOT stop criminals from buying guns. Gun runners are not going to call in for a back ground check on their hoodlum customers. These measures you support are completely pointless. The ONLY people they affect are the law abiding citizens.

These points have been made over and over. This gutless coward would trade away all of his rights for a promise that the government would provide for him and protect him. I used to think he was just a troll. He denied this with earnest. I now believe him and I will add I have more respect for trolls. At least with a troll there is a chance they are just typing something for reaction and might just be a decent person who is being a jerk for the fun of it. In this case he is who he says he is and is the type of person I consider an enemy~

[Aries Walker]

This is sort of off-topic, but if there's one thing that gets me, it's the rampant misquoting and out-of-context quoting of the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries. It's not specific to you, RNR, or to this thread or even this message board, but I'm going to pick on you a bit because you just quoted a whole bunch at once.

Originally Posted by RNR

These are not~

"...What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify is a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure...." - Thomas Jefferson: Letter to Colonel Smith, Nov. 13, 1787

You're totally correct, he did say that. However, he wasn't talking about the right to bear arms; he was talking about a recent insurrection in Massachusetts, and how it was born of ignorance rather than maliciousness, stating in essence that it's OK for the population to act up out of that ignorance every once in a while, rather than to attempt to crush them when they do. Here's the full context.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms..." - Thomas Jefferson

This was in his early drafts of the Virginia Constitution, and he didn't include it in the final. Also, the next words in two of his drafts are along the lines of "on his own property".

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." -Patrick Henry

Patrick Henry definitely said this - as he was arguing against the ratification of the US Constitution.

"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms." - James Madison

These aren't the exact words; there's a lot of text missing in the "--". Madison was talking specifically about states being able to resist the federal government through their militias. He wasn't talking about individuals.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States..." - Noah Webster

Webster was an extreme Federalist. He was constantly struggling against the Jeffersonian states-rights crowd. Here, he was telling the states that they had nothing to fear from a federal army. Back in those days, the Federalists and anti-Federalists spent an awful lot of time arguing just that.

"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey

I'm skipping this one over, as he wasn't exactly a Founding Father (and it's late, and I have work in the morning). I will point out, though, that he admits that the chance of tyranny these days is remote.

And to those shitbags who follow this government like sheep this quote fits them well~

"They that give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

This one, completely correct.

[Bowser]

Haven't read the thread.

I do not support the ban of assault weapons in any way, shape, or form.

Guns are not the problem. The crazy people that pick up the guns with bad intentions ARE.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

This is what I was thinking of. I actually had to search this forum to find this. It is like it has been swept well under the rug or something.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...0&postcount=19

You are correct, there was a vote by the house on the senate bill (though not the comfortable majority you say it had) but, it was not an up and down vote on the bill but, rather a procedural vote that had the bill attached to it.

No shit I'm correct, I only followed the thing day-by-day for an entire year of my life.

Obamacare passed with comfortable majorities in both chambers. To get around cloture (thanks to Scott Brown breaking up the supermajority), they attached a couple parts of it to a spending bill which could not be filibustered (reconciliation).

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Bowser

Haven't read the thread.

I do not support the ban of assault weapons in any way, shape, or form.

Guns are not the problem. The crazy people that pick up the guns with bad intentions ARE.

As are the liberal sheep to ****ing stupid to realize that.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

No, every argument you made in response that post was dealt with in the portion of the post you did not respond to.

I ignored the low-hanging fruit.

Such as:

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

You ignored the fact that assault weapons are already banned.

I'm talking about the weapons that were banned under the AWB of the Clinton era, but now are no longer.

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

You ignored the fact that these laws you want will NOT stop criminals from buying guns.

No shit. The point is to put them on the radar. We can't do that if they can buy legally with no government tracking of gun sales.

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

Gun runners are not going to call in for a back ground check on their hoodlum customers.

Never said they were.

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

These measures you support are completely pointless. The ONLY people they affect are the law abiding citizens.

Not really, but whatever.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Fish

That falls a little short. Especially considering you're acknowledging that your magazine ban wouldn't prevent the attack, but maybe provide a few extra seconds. Sorry but you can't justify the cost for that poor of an expectation.

The magazine limit is only one of a few things I'd support, which collectively could potentially lower the number of shootings we have in the long run.

[petegz28]

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I ignored the low-hanging fruit.

Such as:



I'm talking about the weapons that were banned under the AWB of the Clinton era, but now are no longer.

Those were not assault weapons either.

No shit. The point is to put them on the radar. We can't do that if they can buy legally with no government tracking of gun sales.



Never said they were.

How in the f#ck do you expect anything to show up on the radar when the purchases will be made via non-authorized dealers not running back ground checks? This is where your "logic" fails in a big time way. The only people popping up on the radar will be the non-criminals, the average every day citizen.

Not really, but whatever.

Actually, quite completely.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

No shit I'm correct, I only followed the thing day-by-day for an entire year of my life.

Obamacare passed with comfortable majorities in both chambers. To get around cloture (thanks to Scott Brown breaking up the supermajority), they attached a couple parts of it to a spending bill which could not be filibustered (reconciliation).

Does not change the fact that they did not have a direct vote on the bill itself. The reason they didn't is because they did not have the votes to pass it. And the vote that did carry it only had a four or five vote margin that was in question until very late, not this comfortable majority you keep trying say there was.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

Those were not assault weapons either.

Considering nearly all people of all political stripes are comfortable calling them that, I'm comfortable continuing to call them that.

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

How in the f#ck do you expect anything to show up on the radar when the purchases will be made via non-authorized dealers not running back ground checks?

Because law enforcement invests resources into deciphering where illegal gun peddlers are.

Of course, allowing the government to track all gun purchases would have largely the same effect.

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

Actually, quite completely

Not really.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

Does not change the fact that they did not have a direct vote on the bill itself.

Yes.

They.

Did.

Seriously, you're underinformed or misinformed. Take your pick.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Considering nearly all people of all political stripes are comfortable calling them that, I'm comfortable continuing to call them that.

It is a bald faced lie. You will not find S.W.A.T. teams or the military assaulting anyone with the guns you are proposing to ban. They assault with either select fire weapons (single shot, three round burst or fully auto) or fully automatic weapons. These weapons are already illegal for civilians to own unless said civilian has a class 3 weapons permit. What you are being told are assault weapons are nothing more than hunting rifles. Just because everyone says something, does not make it so.

Because law enforcement invests resources into deciphering where illegal gun peddlers are.

Odds are the gun runners are selling to someone who already has a criminal back ground who is forbidden from purchasing fire arms (precisely WHY they are buying on the black market) which is enough to arrest said buyer. You do not need to make the weapon illegal as well to accomplish this.

Of course, allowing the government to track all gun purchases would have largely the same effect.

I will not even get into the moral and totalitarian government aspects of this statement. I will just simply say that it would be impossible to pull off.

Not really.

Yeah, really.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The magazine limit is only one of a few things I'd support, which collectively could potentially lower the number of shootings we have in the long run.

This is the problem I have. Forgoing freedoms on hunches and correlations is not smart policy.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

It is a bald faced lie.

It's also what virtually everybody, including the NRA, calls them, so I'm going to just go with that and forego the Orwellian bullshit.

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

I will not even get into the moral and totalitarian government aspects of this statement. I will just simply say that it would be impossible to pull off.

Nonsense. We pull this off with cars easily.

Honestly, we should be able to trace every bullet fired and every gun used. That will open up all sorts of doors for law enforcement.