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.

[pr_capone]

Originally Posted by RyFo18

Only the fully semi-automatic rifles.

[RyFo18]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

Not serious

[LiveSteam]

[LiveSteam]

[Dave]

Liberals think banning something will make it just disappear.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The goal of an assault weapons ban is simple: make shooting sprees less deadly.

I hear ya, I feel ya. I understand where you are coming from. That being said.......

• The previous assault weapons ban didn't work.
• I don't think assault weapons are on the same level as a bazooka's, air to air missiles etc. and need to be banned.
• Yes, there is additional danger. We would be safer with an assault ban. But, we would be safer if we outlawed neo-nazi's, monitored our own citizens and restricted free speech more. There is always risk associated with freedom.
• The 2nd amendment is clear. It's just not about protecting our home or hunting deer.

Unless you want to change the constitution, it is a risk to our safety that a free democracy must keep in place. If we don't respect the constitution, we will fail as a democracy.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by RNR

Ok we disagree~

Only five shitbags not bad~

[pr_capone]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I hear ya, I feel ya. I understand where you are coming from. That being said.......

• The previous assault weapons ban didn't work.
• I don't think assault weapons are on the same level as a bazooka's, air to air missiles etc. and need to be banned.
• Yes, there is additional danger. We would be safer with an assault ban. But, we would be safer if we outlawed neo-nazi's, monitored our own citizens and restricted free speech more. There is always risk associated with freedom.
• The 2nd amendment is clear. It's just not about protecting our home or hunting deer.

Unless you want to change the constitution, it is a risk to our safety that a free democracy must keep in place. If we don't respect the constitution, we will fail as a democracy.

I'm gonna steal this. Just so you know. And it will be unattributed because I will be using it as my own point.

But well stated.

[petegz28]

If Direckshun really gave a shit like he claims he would be pushing for banning .38 Specials and not AR-15's.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

I'm gonna steal this. Just so you know. And it will be unattributed because I will be using it as my own point.

But well stated.

BEP will be along shortly to chastise me that we are not a democracy but a republic.

[petegz28]

In 2010, 385 people were murdered by a rifle of some type. By contrast 745 people were beaten to death by bare hands.

[theelusiveeightrop]

No.

[Aries Walker]

So, I'm one of the shitbags who said yes. Here's my reasoning.

1. Of course a ban on assault weapons won't bring all gun-related violence to a screeching halt. Death-by-rifle makes up a pretty tiny part of the whole death-by-firearm spectrum, so it wouldn't prevent all of the killings - but it will prevent some, and everything starts with a 'some'.

2. Because it might pass. A proposal to ban handguns - far and away the death-dealingest kind of firearm - would never even get through committee. This, might. That's politics.

3. Because you don't need 'em. They're not needed to hunt or to target shoot - people hear have been very happy to demonstrate versions of the exact same rifles which would be 100% totally OK for use on the range or in the hunting grounds. They're not needed for home defense; shotguns and handguns are better for that.

One could argue that an assault weapon is needed to resist a potentially tyrannical government. However, a fully automatic M-60 or a shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missile would do the same, and yet those are very regulated. There has to be a line somewhere, and when weapons become more pervasive and more deadly, there has to be a time when we decide as a country that they shouldn't be widely dispersed. There is precedent for this, namely when fully automatic weapons became available; at some point, the government decided to restrict them. Same thing.

I should point out one more thing: collectors. Collectors don't need their weapons, they want them. Besides the fact that they could still get a Class III License and have them just fine, a want also has to take a back seat to a societal need.

4. Assault rifles are able to accept much larger magazines than pistols, meaning that spree shooters can fire continuously for a longer time without reloading. James Holmes had a 100-round drum (which fortunately jammed) attached to his AR-15. This gets in to the whole "magazine size" debate, which I think is for a different thread.

5. Okay, yeah, I'll say it: they're scary. As in yes, they scare people, and violent shooters know it. There aren't many other reasons that, say, Adam Lanza would have used the AR-15 as his primary weapon over the two handguns he had on him. If he were strictly number crunching, he probably would have gone with the handguns, as the rifle's increased range and muzzle velocity aren't needed in an elementary school. He didn't because he wasn't thinking, and in the midst of his mental crisis (which most spree shooters have), he went with the scary one.

Yeah, sure, maybe if his idiot mother didn't have the AR-15, he would have just used the shotgun, but maybe he wouldn't have. We obviously have no way of knowing. We do, however, have to do something - along with drastically increasing our national outlook on mental health, and maybe have our berserk media give it a f***ing rest for a generation or two - and the cases and statistics I've read, along with my conscience and common sense, tell me that the assault weapons ban is one of the sensible gun control choices we can make these days.

Now, feel free to pick my softie sheeple libtard ass apart, if you like.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

So, I'm one of the shitbags who said yes. Here's my reasoning.

1. Of course a ban on assault weapons won't bring all gun-related violence to a screeching halt. Death-by-rifle makes up a pretty tiny part of the whole death-by-firearm spectrum, so it wouldn't prevent all of the killings - but it will prevent some, and everything starts with a 'some'.

2. Because it might pass. A proposal to ban handguns - far and away the death-dealingest kind of firearm - would never even get through committee. This, might. That's politics.

3. Because you don't need 'em. They're not needed to hunt or to target shoot - people hear have been very happy to demonstrate versions of the exact same rifles which would be 100% totally OK for use on the range or in the hunting grounds. They're not needed for home defense; shotguns and handguns are better for that.

One could argue that an assault weapon is needed to resist a potentially tyrannical government. However, a fully automatic M-60 or a shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missile would do the same, and yet those are very regulated. There has to be a line somewhere, and when weapons become more pervasive and more deadly, there has to be a time when we decide as a country that they shouldn't be widely dispersed. There is precedent for this, namely when fully automatic weapons became available; at some point, the government decided to restrict them. Same thing.

I should point out one more thing: collectors. Collectors don't need their weapons, they want them. Besides the fact that they could still get a Class III License and have them just fine, a want also has to take a back seat to a societal need.

4. Assault rifles are able to accept much larger magazines than pistols, meaning that spree shooters can fire continuously for a longer time without reloading. James Holmes had a 100-round drum (which fortunately jammed) attached to his AR-15. This gets in to the whole "magazine size" debate, which I think is for a different thread.

5. Okay, yeah, I'll say it: they're scary. As in yes, they scare people, and violent shooters know it. There aren't many other reasons that, say, Adam Lanza would have used the AR-15 as his primary weapon over the two handguns he had on him. If he were strictly number crunching, he probably would have gone with the handguns, as the rifle's increased range and muzzle velocity aren't needed in an elementary school. He didn't because he wasn't thinking, and in the midst of his mental crisis (which most spree shooters have), he went with the scary one.

Yeah, sure, maybe if his idiot mother didn't have the AR-15, he would have just used the shotgun, but maybe he wouldn't have. We obviously have no way of knowing. We do, however, have to do something - along with drastically increasing our national outlook on mental health, and maybe have our berserk media give it a f***ing rest for a generation or two - and the cases and statistics I've read, along with my conscience and common sense, tell me that the assault weapons ban is one of the sensible gun control choices we can make these days.

Now, feel free to pick my softie sheeple libtard ass apart, if you like.

No need to pick your post apart. You did a good job of that yourself

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

So, I'm one of the shitbags who said yes. Here's my reasoning.

1. Of course a ban on assault weapons won't bring all gun-related violence to a screeching halt. Death-by-rifle makes up a pretty tiny part of the whole death-by-firearm spectrum, so it wouldn't prevent all of the killings - but it will prevent some, and everything starts with a 'some'.

2. Because it might pass. A proposal to ban handguns - far and away the death-dealingest kind of firearm - would never even get through committee. This, might. That's politics.

3. Because you don't need 'em. They're not needed to hunt or to target shoot - people hear have been very happy to demonstrate versions of the exact same rifles which would be 100% totally OK for use on the range or in the hunting grounds. They're not needed for home defense; shotguns and handguns are better for that.

One could argue that an assault weapon is needed to resist a potentially tyrannical government. However, a fully automatic M-60 or a shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missile would do the same, and yet those are very regulated. There has to be a line somewhere, and when weapons become more pervasive and more deadly, there has to be a time when we decide as a country that they shouldn't be widely dispersed. There is precedent for this, namely when fully automatic weapons became available; at some point, the government decided to restrict them. Same thing.

I should point out one more thing: collectors. Collectors don't need their weapons, they want them. Besides the fact that they could still get a Class III License and have them just fine, a want also has to take a back seat to a societal need.

4. Assault rifles are able to accept much larger magazines than pistols, meaning that spree shooters can fire continuously for a longer time without reloading. James Holmes had a 100-round drum (which fortunately jammed) attached to his AR-15. This gets in to the whole "magazine size" debate, which I think is for a different thread.

5. Okay, yeah, I'll say it: they're scary. As in yes, they scare people, and violent shooters know it. There aren't many other reasons that, say, Adam Lanza would have used the AR-15 as his primary weapon over the two handguns he had on him. If he were strictly number crunching, he probably would have gone with the handguns, as the rifle's increased range and muzzle velocity aren't needed in an elementary school. He didn't because he wasn't thinking, and in the midst of his mental crisis (which most spree shooters have), he went with the scary one.

Yeah, sure, maybe if his idiot mother didn't have the AR-15, he would have just used the shotgun, but maybe he wouldn't have. We obviously have no way of knowing. We do, however, have to do something - along with drastically increasing our national outlook on mental health, and maybe have our berserk media give it a f***ing rest for a generation or two - and the cases and statistics I've read, along with my conscience and common sense, tell me that the assault weapons ban is one of the sensible gun control choices we can make these days.

Now, feel free to pick my softie sheeple libtard ass apart, if you like.

You got some big balls my friend.