Obama may re-instate the ban on assault weapons.

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

I'm a self-professed gun nut.
I go shooting as regularly as I can, and currently own a Century Arms AKM-S (that's a modernized AK-47 with a folding stock, for those of you too busy with important things to bother yourselves with designations for firearms), as well as about ten other weapons that blanket the spectrum of legal-to-own weapons from pistols to hunting rifles. I use all but a select few of them extensively.

Recently, while making trips to the gun shop for ammunition, I've noticed a disturbing trend; my fellow patrons have been utterly fascinated with assault rifles, as of late. People that usually go in, buy ammo and leave, were now browsing the racks of assault weapons behind the counter, and asking to see certain types, asking which one was the best of the selection. Once I'd reached the front of the line with my ammo I decided to ask the clerk what was happening, and it went something like this:

Me: "Lotta people interested in the carbines?"
Clerk: "Yep. A lotta people want to buy them before Obama bans them."

Now, at the time, I'd kinda nodded without saying a word, and dismissed it as the result of right-wing fear-mongering. But today, when I watched Real Time with Bill Maher, Governor Howard Dean (D-Vermont) stated that he foresaw a ban on assault weapons within Obama's first term, on account of all the assault weapons being shipped from America to Mexico to fuel the drug wars.

Here's my stance: As someone who considers the maintenance and usage of all manner of firearms, you might be surprised to know that I'm not opposed to a ban. Assault rifles in America are unnecessary, in my opinion. Nobody needs a 30-round clip of rounds capable of piercing police body armour and quarter-inch steel for home defense or hunting; let alone an assault weapon for concealed carrying. I see my AMK-S for what it is; a great, reliable weapon, meant to kill multiple people in an urban street setting. Honestly, it's a penis-extension gun for the civilian owner. Just holding it makes me feel badass, and I feel that's the reason so many people buy it; because it's just plain awesome, and that it actually does make the holder look that much cooler. But as far as everyday use, and reasonable worst-case scenarios taking place that involve you, assault weapons are just plain unnecessary when there are hi-cap pistols, "tactical" shotguns and semi-automatic hunting rifles available.

People may contend that pistols are too hard to use, and that assault rifles should be allowed for those of us not skilled enough to use a pistol effectively (as assault rifles are admittedly the easiest-to-use gun I've ever laid hands on); this goes against my belief that nobody should own a tool designed specifically for killing without having extensive training with it, the purpose of which being not only to make you more effective in taking down a life-threateningly hostile person, but to keep you from KILLING YOURSELF OR INNOCENTS.

EDIT: Sorry, I just woke up. Remembered just a moment ago that Clinton had the right, and therefore, so does Obama. So, allow me to rephrase the question:

Are you for or against a ban on assault weapons?


Second EDIT: Yes, I realize a poll would have been appropriate, here. Sorry.

 

[ExodusinFlames]

He'll open it to discussion I'm sure, and be shrieked at by the right.

I personally think assault rifles shouldn't really be in public hands. Military and law enforcement officals, of course, but civilian ... I dunno

 

[Deathsong17]

Yes, especially guns as dangerous as that. After all, witch is more important, a bullet point on some peice of paper, or the lives of civiliens?

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Why do civilians need assault rifles anyway, to protect themselves from 200 burglars at the same time?

Really if you want like a handgun or something to protect your family that's fine by me, but an assault rifle seems like a tad too much.

 

[Kirra]

I'm pretty sure he can do that, after all he does run that place now.

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

Come on--these guns have the word "assault" right in the freaking name.

Unless you're in the military, or the deer you're hunting has a bazooka, you don't need one.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Obama has the right to do whatever he can get away with.

Banning assault rifles is one thing, but I don't see why a civvy can't own a tactical shotgun for home defense, or a high capacity pistol. The problem I see is that banning guns is a slippery slope, and if I agree with him now I may end up having all gun-owning rights taken away later.

It's important to mention that it is illegal to own automatic assault rifles in the US, at least without a special permit. So everyone who's talking about how civilians have no need for assault rifles? You need to understand that these are "assault rifles" that barely fire any faster than a fast level action Remington. You couldn't, for example, "fight off 200 burglars" with one.

 

[Horned Rat]

Why on earth does a civilian need an assault rifle?

Don't say silly things like home defense because a pistol or an alarm system or a dog can do that. Don't say hunting because that is what rifles are for, assault weapons are for assaulting! I'm fairly sure deer don't have strongholds.

 

[zombiekitten]

no

 

[Oopsie]

I agree completely with the op.

 

[jboking]

As I don't feel the need to ever form a militia to overthrow my government, I'm gonna say a ban on assault weapons isn't that bad of an idea. Though, the Mexican drug trade really doesn't seem that valid of a reason to stop it. After all, you can use the same worn out argument every anti-gun ban individual does, "They're criminals, they'll get the guns anyway!"

Then again, that doesn't mean we shouldn't make getting the guns a little harder for them.

 

[raptorianone]

Alright, here's the thing. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow the American people to, if needed, form a militia. If the government gets so corrupt that it must be forcibly overthrown, we must have a snowball's chance in hell of actually pulling it off.

Therefore, banning assault weapons IS against the spirit of the Second Amendment. The Army would still have 'em, and the police would still have 'em - and if they have 'em, and we don't, then we're pretty much screwed.

Now, I'm not saying you should give everyone an M1A1 Abrams tank... (although that would be pretty cool...) but perhaps people should at least be allowed to keep their assault rifles.

 

[JohnSmith]

I agree with the op, if you need more than a shotgun/pistol to defend yourself then its the freaking apocalypse and you can go raid an army base. However I hold this opinion as an australian which means the only kind of bullets i'm allowed to defend myself with are mind bullets from my brain gun.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

And anyway, handguns are simply cooler.

You have some kind of handgun fetish, don't you?

 

[Vern]

No he doesn't. Congress does by passing a ban on certain types of weapons, but the Brady Ban did just that, and banned firearms based on 'scary' characteristics. Best example: an AR-15, the semi-automatic civilian version of the M-16 or M4 rifle was made illegal, it fires the 5.56x45mm cartridge. It's a military style rifle which can use high capacity magazines. The collapsible stock that it has was also illegal, since being able to change the length of the stock from 12 inches to 8 inches apparently makes it that much more dangerous. The Ruger M-14 was still legal, even though it fires the exact same 5.56x45 cartridge, but it had a wooden or synthetic stock similar to a hunting rifle, but it can still use high capacity magazines. It was a completely pointless and aesthetic ban, and even since it's sunsetting murder rates have gone down. The carbines and rifles it banned are used in less than 10% of murders. The ban didn't work, it didn't affect anything, it was an assault on gun owners rights to have as close to the same protection that our military has. There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning semi-automatic rifles. Also, they're not assault rifles, they're either semi-automatic rifles, or automatic rifles, assault rifles is a scary term coined by people that want to scare people into letting them take away their rights. The only 'assault rifle' ever made was the German Sturmgewehr 44, which translates to storm/attack/assault rifle. No you don't need a rifle with a 30 round magazine for hunting, but the last time I checked the second Amendment makes no mention of hunting. Yes the firearms are designed with the soul intent of killing humans, but that's why firearms were invented in the first place. The fact that they made hunting easier was an added bonus. The second Amendment makes use of the "In the interest of a well regulated militia" wording. It's impossible to have a militia if the civilians aren't allowed to own firearms. They're not going to magically materialize once we say "Hey, let's form a milita!". The Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 were fought almost entirely with privately owned firearms.
Oh, as an aside the whole "American guns are fueling the drug cartels" idea is asinine and over exaggerated. You'll hear the statistic that 90% of the firearms seized from the cartels can be traced to the US. Real fact, from 2007-2008 29,000 firearms were confiscated in Mexico. Of those 11,000 were sent to the BATFE for tracing, since the rest of them were clearly not from America due to the stampings on them, the serial numbers, or lack of serial numbers. Of those 11,000 about 6,000 were traced to a country of origin, of those 5,114 were traced to America. So out of 29,000, 5,114 were traced to America. Slightly less than 90% I would say. It's a hell out a lot easier, and cheaper to pack 200 fully automatic AK-47's into a boat along with all the drugs your transporting from Southeast Asia than having a bunch of people in the US making straw purchases on a $500 semi-auto AK and smuggling it across the border. Also, last time I checked you couldn't buy hand grenades and RPG-7's in US gun shops.

 

[Caninus]

As I'm from the UK I doubt anything I say will contribute much to this debate due to the fact that we have different laws to the US when it comes to firearms (thought there is a law about it being to fine to shoot a Scottish person with a long bow in a certain region of Briton). However I believe it would be wise to ban Assault Rifles, as dreadedcandiru99 pointed out they have Assault in the title and thus aren't really for home defence. There will undoubtedly be some right wing Americans on this forum who will see this thread and tell us all how wrong we are and that's when the real debate will kick in.