Obama may re-instate the ban on assault weapons.

[Travdelosmuertos]

I'm not aiming this response toward anyone in particular here, it's more of a personal anecdote than anything. When arguing with my family about this - I'm personally against assault rifles, while being pro-gun - they usually take an anti-liberal stance. As if Clinton and Obama were the bane of guns. The original ban in 86 was set in place by Reagan, and expanded upon by Bush Sr. Then, expanded upon again by Clinton. So, in the last 25 years, 2 of 3 assault weapons bans were GOP initiated. /argument.

They also call Obama a socialist, yet applaud Bush Jr. for the bailouts. I don't get it. Obama's a socialist, but Bush isn't? How are the bailouts not socialist? Then, they complain about social security going bankrupt and how they won't get it when they retire. WTF? Seriously, I want to collectively slap America in the face.

 

[Agayek]

I don't understand why assault weapons we're ever legal for the general population... I mean, the function of an Assault weapon is to kill another human being... No civilian should BE killing other people so why sell them weapons to facilitate that? I don't care about legalizing hunting weapons, because they actually serve a purpose other than causing the death of other human beings.

There is no such thing as a weapon that is not meant to kill.

I don't care what weapon it is, what time period it's from, or what culture invented it. The entire purpose of a weapon is to kill, and believe it or not, a hunting rifle is just as deadly as a fully automatic AK-47.

 

[Leefank137]

I'm for the ban, assault rifles are completely unnecessary.

 

[Agayek]

I would hate to see the state of the world if governments didn't regulate certain things with the intent of protecting it's citizens.

If the government didn't regulate ownership of various things, people who wanted them would own them, and people who didn't want them wouldn't. It doesn't hurt anything.

If someone who did own a weapon decided he wanted to go on a killing spree, then the ************ should be castrated with a rusty spork and then hung, drawn and quartered.

Ownership of a weapon does not make you any more or less likely to kill. It's the man holding it that defines that. Murderers will still be murderers, regardless of what weapons they have legal access to.

I'm not aiming this response toward anyone in particular here, it's more of a personal anecdote than anything. When arguing with my family about this - I'm personally against assault rifles, while being pro-gun - they usually take an anti-liberal stance. As if Clinton and Obama were the bane of guns. The original ban in 86 was set in place by Reagan, and expanded upon by Bush Sr. Then, expanded upon again by Clinton. So, in the last 25 years, 2 of 3 assault weapons bans were GOP initiated. /argument.

They also call Obama a socialist, yet applaud Bush Jr. for the bailouts. I don't get it. Obama's a socialist, but Bush isn't? How are the bailouts not socialist? Then, they complain about social security going bankrupt and how they won't get it when they retire. WTF? Seriously, I want to collectively slap America in the face.

The problem is that there aren't any real right-wing politicians anymore .

Both Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same, and they just like to argue with themselves endlessly.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

How does that apply to keeping assault rifles, or hell even a tactical shotgun for home defense?

I'm going to preface the following with a nice old disclaimer: I do not own a gun. I am a college student majoring in Int'l Studies. I am a libertarian, atheist, and I come from Chicago. I against the ban on assault rifles.

Now that that's over with, if you look at the motivation behind the 2nd amendment, they basically wrote it because they didn't want government to be able to get away with stuff. If the people are armed, then the government has to respect their rights in a more real and direct way (because revolution is easier). That said, weapon ownership could be considered a huge check on government abuse of powers. Obviously it has drawbacks, but given the choice between low crime in a totalitarian system, or high crime but I'm given individual liberties, I'll pick the second option any day. In the words of Benjamin Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I know some of the paraphrasings sound cooler, but I figured I wanted to get the quote right.

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?

Yes, it's why the government isn't totalitarian now. Rule of law works, but only when enforced.

I don't understand why assault weapons we're ever legal for the general population... I mean, the function of an Assault weapon is to kill another human being... No civilian should BE killing other people so why sell them weapons to facilitate that? I don't care about legalizing hunting weapons, because they actually serve a purpose other than causing the death of other human beings.

So that basically says revolutions against tyrannies are unjust and the Jews had no right to fight back against the Nazis, they just had to lay back and take it.

One more general point: A general trend here seems to be that few people against guns have specifically argued why assault rifles are worse than, say, hunting rifles, pistols, etc. Further, I would argue that there are tons of other things that can be used as weapons. light aircraft, SUVs, cars in general, private jets, knives, and a slew of other easily accessible potential weapons are usually overlooked in this debate, and are arguably hugely under-regulated to eliminate threats. Banning assault rifles because they are dangerous creates a ruse of solvency because people can still use pistols, knives, and cars as weapons (the latter two are EXTREMELY easy to access). If they ban assault rifles, then people should be forced to face rigorous background checks in order to qualify for knife and car ownership.

Another problem I see: the danger of legislating gun safety is that it puts the government in the role of "mommy and daddy", making sure we don't do anything stupid/dangerous. The problem is that once they assume this role, there's no point at which we can legitimately say "stop, you ominous monolithic entity!" since the government can always say a) people, we know what's best, you are wrong. b) take away our right to say we don't like all the padding and supervision.

Assault rifles are an issue in America because it's been a hot-button issue for a while, and because we arbitrarily decided that safety is about assault rifles rather than sa, something logical. The vast majority of firearms crimes are committed with pistols since fewer background checks are required, they are cheaper, and easier to conceal.

 

[Travdelosmuertos]

I don't understand why assault weapons we're ever legal for the general population... I mean, the function of an Assault weapon is to kill another human being... No civilian should BE killing other people so why sell them weapons to facilitate that? I don't care about legalizing hunting weapons, because they actually serve a purpose other than causing the death of other human beings.

There is no such thing as a weapon that is not meant to kill.

I don't care what weapon it is, what time period it's from, or what culture invented it. The entire purpose of a weapon is to kill, and believe it or not, a hunting rifle is just as deadly as a fully automatic AK-47.

That is 100% false. A fully auto AK with a 30 round clip can kill 30 people in about 20 seconds. A hunting rifle, generally semi-auto and sometimes even bolt-action could never do that. Hunting rifles' purpose is implicit, it is a weapon purposed to kill animals. An assault rifle's purpose is also implicit, it is meant to kill humans quickly and in mass numbers.

 

[xxcloud417xx]

I don't understand why assault weapons we're ever legal for the general population... I mean, the function of an Assault weapon is to kill another human being... No civilian should BE killing other people so why sell them weapons to facilitate that? I don't care about legalizing hunting weapons, because they actually serve a purpose other than causing the death of other human beings.

There is no such thing as a weapon that is not meant to kill.

I don't care what weapon it is, what time period it's from, or what culture invented it. The entire purpose of a weapon is to kill, and believe it or not, a hunting rifle is just as deadly as a fully automatic AK-47.

notice my use of the words "kill humans." Hunting weapons are designed to kill game. Yes they CAN kill people, but it's not their main purpose, an assault weapon on the other hand was specifically designed to kill humans. That's what my argument is about; "Why supply people with weapons specifically designed to kill other people?"

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

Of course Obama is talking about banning assault weapons. Next, he'll ban hunting firearms too. It's one of the steps needed for total control of a people by a socialist government. It's hard to rule the people when they can still fight back. This kind of thing is exactly why the writers of the Constitution put in the amendment to protect the citizens right to keep and bear arms. They'd lived in countries in Europe where the crowns didn't allow them to have weapons and didn't want to have to endure that in the New World. What they didn't forsee, was that in the future, the politicians and far too many of the citizens would choose to ignore the Constitution and give up their rights anyway. The U.S. is going to turn into the very sort of socialist state that it's founders escaped from in the first place. Sad really.

Thread over.

Actually that's a pretty legit point, except that dukethepcdr is making the assumption that the government currently has malignant intentions. Obama wants to ban assault rifles because the left will like him for it which will bolster his approval ratings for now, the senate and house will probably back him for the same reason. In short, banning assault rifles won't lead to totalitarianism for the moment, but it does make us have a harder time defending against state abuses if the state decides later to ban civil liberties. Don't dismiss the logic just because you disagree with it.

 

[Agayek]

That is 100% false. A fully auto AK with a 30 round clip can kill 30 people in about 20 seconds. A hunting rifle, generally semi-auto and sometimes even bolt-action could never do that. Hunting rifles' purpose is implicit, it is a weapon purposed to kill animals. An assault rifle's purpose is also implicit, it is meant to kill humans quickly and in mass numbers.

That's no consolation to the guy dead from a bullet to the forehead. The more deaths there are doesn't make it any more tragic. Stop cheapening people's lives.

One dead person is just as much a tragedy as 10,000.

If you want to ban weapons, ban them all. Stop being hypocritical. You can do colossal amounts of damage with anything, if you are creative enough. Banning assault rifles does nothing but increase government power.

And on a side note, those hunting rifles you're talking about ARE the assault rifles the proposed bill would ban.

notice my use of the words "kill humans." Hunting weapons are designed to kill game. Yes they CAN kill people, but it's not their main purpose, an assault weapon on the other hand was specifically designed to kill humans. That's what my argument is about; "Why supply people with weapons specifically designed to kill other people?"

Every weapon ever made was designed solely to kill another human being. Each and every weapon ever used in a war was designed specifically to help win a war, and thus kill humans. Your argument is simply invalid.

 

[Travdelosmuertos]

That is 100% false. A fully auto AK with a 30 round clip can kill 30 people in about 20 seconds. A hunting rifle, generally semi-auto and sometimes even bolt-action could never do that. Hunting rifles' purpose is implicit, it is a weapon purposed to kill animals. An assault rifle's purpose is also implicit, it is meant to kill humans quickly and in mass numbers.

That's no consolation to the guy dead from a bullet to the forehead. The more deaths there are doesn't make it any more tragic. Stop cheapening people's lives.

One dead person is just as much a tragedy as 10,000.

If you want to ban weapons, ban them all. Stop being hypocritical. You can do colossal amounts of damage with anything, if you are creative enough. Banning assault rifles does nothing but increase government power.

And on a side note, those hunting rifles you're talking about ARE the assault rifles the proposed bill would ban.

As I stated, a hunting rifle's purpose is IMPLICIT in its name. An assault rifle is designed solely to kill humans. A hunting rifle is a tool. A hammer is a tool, too. If I smash my neighbor in the face with that hammer, or I go and help him nail in some shingles to fix a leak on his roof, how is either the fault of the hammer? Again, I restate - an assault rifle is specifically designed for the purpose of MURDER. A hunting rifle is, however, NOT.

 

[Travdelosmuertos]

I would hate to see the state of the world if governments didn't regulate certain things with the intent of protecting it's citizens.

If the government didn't regulate ownership of various things, people who wanted them would own them, and people who didn't want them wouldn't. It doesn't hurt anything.

If someone who did own a weapon decided he wanted to go on a killing spree, then the ************ should be castrated with a rusty spork and then hung, drawn and quartered.

Ownership of a weapon does not make you any more or less likely to kill. It's the man holding it that defines that. Murderers will still be murderers, regardless of what weapons they have legal access to.

I'm not aiming this response toward anyone in particular here, it's more of a personal anecdote than anything. When arguing with my family about this - I'm personally against assault rifles, while being pro-gun - they usually take an anti-liberal stance. As if Clinton and Obama were the bane of guns. The original ban in 86 was set in place by Reagan, and expanded upon by Bush Sr. Then, expanded upon again by Clinton. So, in the last 25 years, 2 of 3 assault weapons bans were GOP initiated. /argument.

They also call Obama a socialist, yet applaud Bush Jr. for the bailouts. I don't get it. Obama's a socialist, but Bush isn't? How are the bailouts not socialist? Then, they complain about social security going bankrupt and how they won't get it when they retire. WTF? Seriously, I want to collectively slap America in the face.

The problem is that there aren't any real right-wing politicians anymore .

Both Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same, and they just like to argue with themselves endlessly.

Republicrats and Democans, one-party system.

 

[Agayek]

As I stated, a hunting rifle's purpose is IMPLICIT in its name. An assault rifle is designed solely to kill humans. A hunting rifle is a tool. A hammer is a tool, too. If I smash my neighbor in the face with that hammer, or I go and help him nail in some shingles to fix a leak on his roof, how is either the fault of the hammer? Again, I restate - an assault rifle is specifically designed for the purpose of MURDER. A hunting rifle is, however, NOT.

Thank you for proving my point. If you smash a man's face in with a hammer, it's your fault, not the hammer's. Just like if you shoot someone, it's your fault, not the gun's nor the bullet's.

And you completely missed what I was trying to say in your haste to prove me wrong. A gun is a gun. Period. It is designed solely to kill, maim, and bring suffering. Whether it's a hunting rifle or an assault rifle (which, again, is simply a hunting rifle with a different stock), it's just as deadly and just as designed for murder.

 

[Hedberger]

People just don't seem to remember that one crucial moment called the American Revolution. Britain wanted to take our guns away, and if they succeeded do you honestly think America could have won that? Our Fore Fathers foresaw this and realized that in order to preserve our great country, civilians would need to be able to possess the same weapons that the military does so if our government screws up enough (like it is doing right now, what with all the bureaucracy, constant war, calling upon us to fix companies that fucked up, the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, etc.).

And even if you had to fight against your government for whatever stupid reason, guess what? Even with automatic weapons, Army would still kick your ass. Even without actually hurting people that much. There is such thing as tanks, at least for sheer intimidation. There is such thing as grenades, and not even mandatorily lethal ones.

No. No it wouldn't. The Russia government tried to do the same damned thing, and it fucking backfired. And Americans are more reluctant to kill their own citizens then the Russians. Its called "Western Morality" and although it has been based on years of stupidity and hardheadedness, it does have its good things like sympathizing with rebels. Americans always sympathize with rebels. It is just in our nature, since that was how our country started.

But say that American soldiers were willing to kill American citizens. We need only look at a few wars to see how this would still result in the American army loosing. How would you know if a civilian is friendly? He could pull a concealed hand-gun on you at any time, and you wouldn't be expecting it. And what if all the civilians or a high-majority of them were against the Army? Not many Americans are in the army. In fact I know that it is well under less then 10%. I'd guess around 3-6%. You'd have, at least, 90% of the country after you.

We are extremely capable of successful revolt, but taking away our weapons is just another way to weaken us in case we try to.

I guess the alternative is just to get involved in politics peacefully without hurting anybody. You know, just settle for demonstrations and such. You won't be living in a dictatorship believe me. If your politicians ever tried to do that the rest of the world would react with military force since you got nukes. The dictatorship wouldn't last a week and you wouldn't need to give criminals assualt weapons.

Make no mistake they don't smuggle these things when they can just import them legally. The criminals probably has contacts with gunsmiths so they can get fully automatic ones if they want while you are stuck with the semi-autos. If you stopped selling them to civilians and outlawed that you could eliminate the problem altogether. They'd still hide their old guns but you could probably track them down and destroy those too.

I really don't see why you need to use lethal force for home defense anyway. What's wrong with a taser, pepperspray or less lethal paintballguns? Is it really necessary to execute someone for breaking into your home?

 

[300lb. Samoan]

My cousin was VERY pissed that his parents had a McCain sign in his front yard - I told him it was because Obama was likely to outlaw the ammunition in their guns. They have a Python revolver, a shotgun, and I believe several rifles around the place, and living outside of the city limits they feel they are essential to proper security. My cousin and I are still big Obama supporters, even though we agree with our parents about gun rights.

 

[Agayek]

I guess the alternative is just to get involved in politics peacefully without hurting anybody. You know, just settle for demonstrations and such. You won't be living in a dictatorship believe me. If your politicians ever tried to do that the rest of the world would react with military force since you got nukes. The dictatorship wouldn't last a week and you wouldn't need to give criminals assualt weapons.

Make no mistake they don't smuggle these things when they can just import them legally. The criminals probably has contacts with gunsmiths so they can get fully automatic ones if they want while you are stuck with the semi-autos. If you stopped selling them to civilians and outlawed that you could eliminate the problem altogether. They'd still hide their old guns but you could probably track them down and destroy those too.

I really don't see why you need to use lethal force for home defense anyway. What's wrong with a taser, pepperspray or less lethal paintballguns? Is it really necessary to execute someone for breaking into your home?

Last I heard, it's illegal to kill someone for B&E, unless they have a weapon on them.

And on a side note, it doesn't have to be a real dictatorship to be a dictatorship. We're almost there as it is. Obama greatly bucked the trend, but from what I've seen, it tends to be a small circle of the wealthy elite that end up in most positions of power. We may as well be living in an oligarchy, they just haven't started stripping (some of) our rights and freedoms yet.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

I would like to posit the following scenario for why gun ownership need to be legalized in order for civil liberties to be protected. It's a hypothetical, so I guess people can pick nits, but please don't pick those nits unless you have something substantive in response. Imagine the following (and it's based on past events):
I group of protesters is protesting what they see as an unjust government action. The Army brings several hundred armed troops to stop the protest with force. The two groups (protesters and army troops) have no way to negotiate, and the army will not veer from the ultimatum "stop the protest or we shoot the protesters". There is no way to appeal to legal authorities or other government actors for help as they would either side with the army, or they would not be able to act in time. In other words, the government is attempting to prevent people from accessing 1st Amendment rights (assuming this occurs in the USA), and the only way to prevent the abuse from occurring is to somehow forcibly prevent the army troops from acting on their ultimatum. In such a situation, gun ownership seems to be the only way to prevent a massacre, as it allows the protesters to protect themselves from being harmed. Having firearms is the only effective defense since it allows one to defend themselves from a threat not within a very close proximity. Further, in such a situation the army would be armed with assault rifles, so in order to effectively protect themselves the protesters would need an equally effective firearm i.e. an assault rifle. Finally , in this scenario the army will not allow the protesters to simply run or hide; they are ordered to arrest or kill the protesters. If anyone can persuade me of a solution to this scenario in which 1st Amendment rights are not violated AND violence is not committed against the army troops, I will concede argumentative defeat. Note that this scenario is very similar to the 1970 Kent State University Shootings, with some aspects changed. Edit: One major difference between this scenario and Kent State is that arguably there was a violent protest at Kent State (students throwing rocks, plus rioting in the days immediately preceding the shootings). In this scenario we assume there is no significant threat to the general peace posed by the protesters. There is no lethal threat to the general population or to the army troops, perceived or actual in this scenario, nor is there any threat of serious, permanent, or otherwise significant injury to anyone, protester or not.

In other words, you actually might be able to win an argument on the internet (which is a very rare and honorable feat, so I've heard). Please note some caveats:
1. utopia scenarios "government should never do such a thing!" are invalid for the obvious reason that governments have, and continue to, do stuff like this all the time.
2. The argument must include proof of solvency; that is, the alternative to violence must work.
3. (edit) We assume that the protesters, if they surrender to the national guard, will be held in prison for a sustained period of time (longer than overnight) and will be unable to simply reassemble at a slightly later time.
4. I do reserve the right to make a response, but I promise that if an argument simply is too good for me to make a counter-argument against, I will admit defeat. I won't try to be a weasel about this.

 

[FURY_007]

WOW the people in this thread are made of FAIL

1. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FUCKING ASSAULT WEAPONS

There are such things as ASSAULT RIFLES which the Germans came up with during WWII, (the MP44 for those of you who have never played a WWII game ever, and the AK47 came after) which have the capability to go fully automatic, single shot, and sometimes 3-round burst, (M16). THESE ARE FUCKING ILLEGAL TO OWN AS CIVILIANS

Civilians can own Semi-automatic weapons that look like m-16s and AKs, but they are just SEMI-AUTOMATIC ONLY

And for those of you who say "OH WHY DO THEY NEED THEM, ITS NOT LIKE THEY GO HUNTING WITH THEM?" More people are giving up traditional bolt-action hunting rifles such as the R700 to go with the SEMIautomatic versions of the M16 because they are reliable, can be outfitted/upgraded to be really accurate, are a lot lighter than traditional hunting rifles, and can hold more bullets. Necessary? not really, but the capabilities thay have make things easier, to whcih people often say OH IF THEY DONT NEED THEM THEN WHY DO THEY WANT IT, by that logic we should ban cars, because they make things easier for us too and kill more people than firearms.

2. CRIMINALS DO NOT GET FIREARMS LEGALLY, usually.

When you hear of criminals shooting people up, its usually with guns that they get off the balck market or from some illegal seller. Banning guns would only serve to make the law-abiding citizens who use/carry guns on a daily basis gunless for no apparent reason, while the criminals will still have the same illegal guns that they have. Period.

On the Topic of semiautomatic versions of military rifles, i think the percentage is less than 1% of gun crimes are rifle related. Why? becasue it is a hell of a lot easier to illegally obtain a pistol, conceal it, then rob/shoot someone/a store. Its pretty much impractical to use one of these for crimes. The only case i can think of is in the 70s or 80s 3 or 4 people were armed with Ruger Mini-14s (which arent even versions of a military rifle, http://world.guns.ru/civil/civ013-e.htm) and got into a gunfight with the police and outgunned them because the police only had pistols and shotguns, now Police Departments will usually have military grade rifles and carbines in their armory, not to mention SWAT teams and such, so to try to get into a gunfight with them would be pointless.

Now, the thing sparking the push of the latest incarnation of the failed AWB is that MEXICAN drug cartels are outgunning MEXICAN police. WHAT THE FUCK, im not even gonna go into why this is bullshit but whatever. The reason that the AWB came into being is that the cartels are armed with M-16s stamped by the US Government that we gave their MILITARIES in the 70s. And so somehow this translates into banning semiautomatic rifles that US citizens use. REALLY, WTF?

There are many other points that i could make regarding this topic, but i dont want to rant too long, so yeah my final point is this

3. Firearms are TOOLS. The person holding the gun is responsible, not the gun. maybe we should ban all knives because they can be used to kill people quite efficiently, think of semiautomatic versions of military rifles as steak knives, They do the same job as different knives, but are more sharper so it can cut faster. These rifles an shoot just as well as bolt actions and such, but can do it faster and longer

 

[confernal]

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.

The army also has tanks and jets.... Wheres my tank or jet?

 

[Agayek]

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.

The army also has tanks and jets.... Wheres my tank or jet?

You don't get a tank. You do however get this brand new Anti-Tank RPG, and the best SAM turret you can afford.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

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.

The army also has tanks and jets.... Wheres my tank or jet?

Arguably since some small aircraft can stay flying at speeds as low as 50 MPH, while even the smallest military aircraft have a minimum speed of 100 MPH, you could potentially just fly really low and wait for any planes trying to pull up behind you to crash.