Obama may re-instate the ban on assault weapons.

[HentMas]

Well, here I go, hope no one gets insulted by this.

As a Mexican I am well aware that out own military does not have the capacity to buy weaponry as advanced as some drug dealers are, which makes it difficult to take on full head on against, just a week ago they managed to capture a 20 years old girl that was involved with some mayor drug dealer, she had in possesion rocket launchers, grenades, assault rifles, and various automatic weapons off different caliber.

it made me wonder "where did she got all that??" I mean as a civilian the only weapon available to us are .22 calibre, non automatic weapons (be it rifle or guns) and we are not allowed to carry them anywhere or shoot anyone, well, we are, but only under precise circumstances involving the faces of the moon and the position of the stars (joking but almost true), if not we end up in a great legal battle against the robber or kidnapper or whoever we shot, even if we were afraid or felt out lives endangered, in which almost always it is easier to GIVE money to said delinquent.

so, well, as scarce as the guns are in Mexico, it is weird that the Drug dealers are able to get much higher weaponry than even the military.

so, I am not blaming anyone here, but it does seem plausible that most of the firearms they get are from our most close neighbour (which in coincidence haves much lighter laws about weapons), I read before all the statistics about the guns confiscated by the government but come on, no one can really say where things came from even if those guns were marked from another region.

the drug dealers will always go for the easiest, cheapest and less dangerous way for getting weapons, and that is (in my opinion) the U.S, all they need is a contact in there and send money so they could get the guns.

well, that is my opinion, and perhaps banning assault rifles will not make much of a difference but I think it will help in making things more difficult to anyone trying to get easy weapons out of the U.S

 

[Thanatos34]

That's really funny that people keep mentioning Assault Rifles, because that's not what's being banned here.

Finally someone who understands the term. One single user in a 9 pages long discussion.

What exactly is being banned, then?

I must admit, this is the first I've heard of this ban.

My time has been occupied by looking at HR 1388, and what exactly it means. Also by finals. And papers.

 

[DrDeath3191]

I agree with your stance: No one needs an assault rifle, but I believe smaller arms should still be allowed. You don't need a military-grade weapon to protect yourself on the way to the grocery store.

Why is a pistol acceptable and an AK-47 not? You can kill someone just as dead with a 9mm, or even better a .357 or .44 magnum. And hell, a standard semiautomatic .22 hunting rifle that would be ignored by the proposed ban is just as, if not more, capable of widespread death than the commercially available AK-47s.

Please for the love of God stop being hypocritical. If you're against something, be against it always. Just like if you support something, be for it always. Exceptions lead to nothing but moral decay.

Civilians tend to be terrible shots. Would you rather have them screw up a single 9mm shot, or 3 rounds from an AK. The probability for unintended collateral damage increases with the number of bullets being fired. Pistols tend to be more accurate, and rate of fire and recoil low. The safety of the persons around the gun as well as the one holding it should be considered.

 

[Thanatos34]

I for one am against the banning of assault rifles.

And for those of you who are saying "Sure Obama has the right. He's the president." that's crap. One man in a seat of authority should not have the power to trump the ideas of millions.

And what if those millions are actually FOR more gun laws/control? Does he have any right then to trump them by NOT creating a ban on assault rifles?

I for one am against the banning of assault rifles.

And for those of you who are saying "Sure Obama has the right. He's the president." that's crap. One man in a seat of authority should not have the power to trump the ideas of millions.

And what if those millions are actually FOR more gun laws/control? Does he have any right then to trump them by NOT creating a ban on assault rifles?

Maybe a simple majority is in favor, but the 2nd amendment issue means that in order for the ban to be fully legitimate there needs to be a constitutional amendment. Do you think that 2/3 of the senate and house, as well as 3/4 of the states would favor an amendment getting rid of the 2nd Amendment (or at least limiting it severely)? I would admit that a simple majority f Americans would favor this, but not a 2/3-3/4 majority.

I'm not saying that the majority are in favor of a ban...

I'm asking what he would think IF the majority were in favor. Would he still demand that he be allowed to have whatever firearm he wants? Or would he be okay with it?

It would not matter whether the majority wanted a ban or did not want a ban. Unless an Amendment to the Constitution was passed, overriding the 2nd Amendment, he would not have the authority to ban guns. If that was the case, then yes, he would.

 

[cordeos]

Does anyone know why we have the second amendment? It is so that, if ever needed, the people of America would have the means to overthrow and replace an opressive government.

By banning any sort of gun, a red flag should go up. If he bans all guns, all he's done is opressed America, preventing the right to own the means of revolution.

how much good is that assault rifle going to do against an Abrams tank or F22 raptor, the government has always had the civilian population outgunned even after the revolution the government had ships an cannon. I support the right to own a hand gun or hunting rifle after extensive background checks and psychological testing.

people of Somalia did pretty well in Black hawk Down

Pretty well? since when is around 1,000 dead to kill 18 doing pretty well?

 

[Ionami]

Funny, Thats what I tell myself everytime a American teenager cracks under the pressure your society puts on him and shoots up his classmates with guns he bought at the nearest convenience store.

If he's that deranged, it would be just as simple to find the anarchist's cookbook and whip up a few sticks of dynamite.

Its also delightfully hypocrite that you mention legal weed, since you can bet your ass the average marihuana usage in America is infinitley higher than ours in comparison. Not to mention hard drugs. oh and FYI: its not legal, they just formally not care to forbid its use only. Pretty weak to bring that up as well, whats next? Your going to say I should thank you for saving me from the Germans?

But anway, you go ahead and enjoy your firearms. Ill go ahead and enjoy my collective health insurance.

No idea on drug use in either country, so I can't comment there.

All I will say is that enjoy your socialized health care and the 6-18 hour waits for the emergency room while you are bleeding to death.

I like this guy.

It is a slippery slope to begin banning guns, and no, Obama by himself does not have the authority to do so.

I'm sorry but I just HATE the slippery slope argument...

Really? You really and truly believe that if we ban AK's and similar weapons from average civilians, that before you know it we won't even be able to have a knife in our cutlery drawer?

That's ridiculous... the law will never go past what the majority of people want. There is no slippery slope. If people want more control over "assault rifles" and then get it... then that's it. They're not going to suddenly ask for EVERY gun to be banned... otherwise that's what they'd be asking for right off the bat. And even if they were to ask, it's not going to happen.

 

[Agayek]

What exactly is being banned, then?

I must admit, this is the first I've heard of this ban.

My time has been occupied by looking at HR 1388, and what exactly it means. Also by finals. And papers.

What's being banned is essentially any semi-automatic with specific aesthetic features, such as a pistol grip, folding stock, and possibly a high capacity magazine.

Basically, all it will do is change the rifles used in crime from looking like military weapons to looking like hillbilly weapons.

Civilians tend to be terrible shots. Would you rather have them screw up a single 9mm shot, or 3 rounds from an AK. The probability for unintended collateral damage increases with the number of bullets being fired. Pistols tend to be more accurate, and rate of fire and recoil low. The safety of the persons around the gun as well as the one holding it should be considered.

You can fire just as many rounds in the same time frame from a 9mm semi-automatic pistol as from any rifle this ban will effect. It bans nothing but *some* semiautomatic rifles, because they look scary. Know what you're talking about before you throw your support behind something.

I'm sorry but I just HATE the slippery slope argument...

Really? You really and truly believe that if we ban AK's and similar weapons from average civilians, that before you know it we won't even be able to have a knife in our cutlery drawer?

That's ridiculous... the law will never go past what the majority of people want. There is no slippery slope. If people want more control over "assault rifles" and then get it... then that's it. They're not going to suddenly ask for EVERY gun to be banned... otherwise that's what they'd be asking for right off the bat. And even if they were to ask, it's not going to happen.

Yes, there is a slippery slope. It's happened all over the world repeatedly. Someone whips up a scare, and the people get terrified. They turn to the government to control the scare, but the government needs more and more power to handle the problem, until eventually the people are removed from the process entirely and we're left in a dictatorship.

It is a very, very small step to go from "Give me your guns of type X because they're dangerous" to "give me all your guns because they're dangerous". It will not happen overnight, and it will not be obvious, but the more of their rights people surrender for the illusion of safety, the closer we come to dictatorship.

 

[CloudKiller]

Obama doesn't need to ban assault rifles or any other kind of fire arm, when all he has to do is ban bullets and solve all gun related problems.

 

[Bretty]

The people that apply for the correct permits and take the classes are ordinarily Good people with a knowledge of gun safety etc.

If the Americans in the 1800's hadnt been allowed muskets (the most advanced weapon of the time) you guys would still be British.

The Americans right to bear arms is a good one, worth the support of the people. Of course it is not a surprise most people who talk down on this are people from the North of the country.

It is funny how many Northerners forget that alot of good Southern folk feel that you are still an invading government in their lives and blame you for the poverty of the Southern States.

Sounds like a little bit of a tirade? But now you see why an Assault rifle ban can be seen as yet another federal restriction bypassing their rights.

I am British so dont care either way, but I live in the South... and this is not a singular opinion down here.

 

[Biek]

If he's that deranged, it would be just as simple to find the anarchist's cookbook and whip up a few explosives using relatively common items.

Can you tell me how many times that happened in the Netherlands? Neither can I. Could it be because that never happened?

Its also delightfully hypocrite that you mention legal weed, since you can bet your ass the average marihuana usage in America is infinitley higher than ours in comparison. Not to mention hard drugs. oh and FYI: its not legal, they just formally not care to forbid its use only. Pretty weak to bring that up as well, whats next? Your going to say I should thank you for saving me from the Germans?

But anway, you go ahead and enjoy your firearms. Ill go ahead and enjoy my collective health insurance.

No idea on drug use in either country, so I can't comment there.

All I will say is that enjoy your socialized health care and the 6-18 hour waits for the emergency room while you are bleeding to death.

I had a good laugh with that comment! Regarding collective health care, please try to look into other sources of information than Monty Python sketches.

 

[Ionami]

I'm not saying that the majority are in favor of a ban...

I'm asking what he would think IF the majority were in favor. Would he still demand that he be allowed to have whatever firearm he wants? Or would he be okay with it?

It would not matter whether the majority wanted a ban or did not want a ban. Unless an Amendment to the Constitution was passed, overriding the 2nd Amendment, he would not have the authority to ban guns. If that was the case, then yes, he would.

Again, you're missing my point.

I'm asking a hypothetical, to try and understand his reasoning.

 

[DragunovHUN]

What exactly is being banned, then?

Semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and two or more non-sporting features such as folding stocks, muzzle breaks and pistol grips.

 

[Agayek]

Can you tell me how many times that happened in the Netherlands? Neither can I. Could it be because that never happened?

Probably. I know nothing about the Netherlands except roughly where it's located geographically. I have no inclination to find out more either.

I had a good laugh with that comment! Regarding collective health care, please try to look into other sources of information than Monty Python sketches.

Actually, it was based on second-hand experience of the medical industry in Canada. A friend of mine broke his hand up there once, and was sitting in the waiting room for hours with people with some pretty horrific injuries who were waiting almost as long.

Maybe he exaggerated, or maybe the Netherlands just does it better, I don't know. If what he said was true, and he's usually not one prone to exaggeration, then I would rather hospitals be privatized.

 

[WrongSprite]

"How shall I hunt bears and shoot foreigners without my AK?!"

Seriously, who's complaining about civilians not having automatic/high-calibre weapons?
Because every country needs an army of untrained, undisciplined, unarmoured and paranoid militiamen who can be outclassed in every aspect by a standing army.

They already ARE semi-automatic. Learn something about our existing firearm laws. Assault rifles in America are NOT full auto, unless you get a special permit which is difficult to obtain.

Nobody should own a gun? Why stop there? What about bows? What about catapults? What about swords, axes, heavy sticks, rocks, knives, and everything just a little bit sharp that could be used to kill somebody?

Weapons are all around us, it's just that some are more political than others. Guns are easy to use, but so are rocks.

Tomorrow I'm marching down to city hall and proposing a ban on rocks! Everyone with me remember to vote this issue through to protect our kids!

Vote with me and we can rid our streets of THIS.

I'd like to see you snipe someone with a fuckin' rock, mate.

Deal =D

 

[kawligia]

I'm sorry but I just HATE the slippery slope argument...

Really? You really and truly believe that if we ban AK's and similar weapons from average civilians, that before you know it we won't even be able to have a knife in our cutlery drawer?

That's ridiculous... the law will never go past what the majority of people want. There is no slippery slope. If people want more control over "assault rifles" and then get it... then that's it. They're not going to suddenly ask for EVERY gun to be banned... otherwise that's what they'd be asking for right off the bat. And even if they were to ask, it's not going to happen.

The slippery slope is not as ridiculous as you think. If we can ban assault rifles because of their unique characteristics (long range, powerful, carry lots of rounds) then you can ban other weapons for their specific characteristics.

For example, handguns could be banned because they can be concealed. Shotguns can be banned because they fire in a spread and can injure bystanders.

Every weapon has something that can be isolated to "justify" a ban on that particular weapon. If you are successful in reframing the question from "ban" to a "restriction" on TYPE of gun, then you can do it again with another TYPE until there are no types left.

They would NEVER try to get a complete ban all at once because people would oppose it and it would never happen. ONLY by justifying attacks on each type of firearm one at a time, making small steps each time, would they ever be successful.

Anyway, all this may be moot, at least for now. Obama already said last week that he will not seek an assault weapons ban. I think he sees opposition growing. A gun ban right now would be explosive.

 

[cordeos]

Yes, there is a slippery slope. It's happened all over the world repeatedly. Someone whips up a scare, and the people get terrified. They turn to the government to control the scare, but the government needs more and more power to handle the problem, until eventually the people are removed from the process entirely and we're left in a dictatorship.

It is a very, very small step to go from "Give me your guns of type X because they're dangerous" to "give me all your guns because they're dangerous". It will not happen overnight, and it will not be obvious, but the more of their rights people surrender for the illusion of safety, the closer we come to dictatorship.

when and where has this happened? because last time i checked Britain which has very strict gun control laws is not a dictatorship

 

[Biek]

Can you tell me how many times that happened in the Netherlands? Neither can I. Could it be because that never happened?

Probably. I know nothing about the Netherlands except roughly where it's located geographically. I have no inclination to find out more either.

I had a good laugh with that comment! Regarding collective health care, please try to look into other sources of information than Monty Python sketches.

Actually, it was based on second-hand experience of the medical industry in Canada. A friend of mine broke his hand up there once, and was sitting in the waiting room for hours with people with some pretty horrific injuries who were waiting almost as long.

Maybe he exaggerated, or maybe the Netherlands just does it better, I don't know. If what he said was true, and he's usually not one prone to exaggeration, then I would rather hospitals be privatized.

I had an injury a few months ago. Nothing life-threatening, butrequired stitches. Severe or not, I was the only patient in the lobby and it took 5 to 10 minutes for a doctor to show up and check me out. Mind you, that this was the same hospital where the most critically injured were taken from this plane crash a day before. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/25/plane-crash-amsterdam-schiphol-turkish

 

[Agayek]

when and where has this happened? because last time i checked Britain which has very strict gun control laws is not a dictatorship

Germany, 1930s. You may remember a little thing like the rise of the Third Reich. It started with a very similar "X must be banned", in this case Jews. Hitler managed to stir public opinion, manipulating their fears and anxieties, giving them an outlet in the Jews. From there, it grew to include, gypsies, blacks, gays, and eventually anyone that disagreed with ze Fuhrer, and ultimately ended with 12 million people killed in internment camps, and the largest loss of life in any human conflict.

It is not guaranteed to happen, hell it's not even normal for such to happen, but it can, and the perceived safety from banning *some* semiautomatic rifles is not worth the risk to my freedoms.

 

[Gladion]

Yes, there is a slippery slope. It's happened all over the world repeatedly. Someone whips up a scare, and the people get terrified. They turn to the government to control the scare, but the government needs more and more power to handle the problem, until eventually the people are removed from the process entirely and we're left in a dictatorship.

It is a very, very small step to go from "Give me your guns of type X because they're dangerous" to "give me all your guns because they're dangerous". It will not happen overnight, and it will not be obvious, but the more of their rights people surrender for the illusion of safety, the closer we come to dictatorship.

when and where has this happened? because last time i checked Britain which has very strict gun control laws is not a dictatorship

Yeah, I've noticed that whenever ANYTHING gets banned, restricted etc. people start crying about their human rights. Whether it's children not being allowed into the cinema when there's an 18+ rated film being shown or, in this case, someone thinks about guns actually being not such a great thing to protect yourself. Though we're not talking about strict laws like in, say, most European countries, god forbid.

when and where has this happened? because last time i checked Britain which has very strict gun control laws is not a dictatorship

Germany, 1930s. You may remember a little thing like the rise of the Third Reich. It started with a very similar "X must be banned", in this case Jews. Hitler managed to stir public opinion, manipulating their fears and anxieties, giving them an outlet in the Jews. From there, it grew to include, gypsies, blacks, gays, and eventually anyone that disagreed with ze Fuhrer, and ultimately ended with 12 million people killed in internment camps, and the largest loss of life in any human conflict.

It is not guaranteed to happen, hell it's not even normal for such to happen, but it can, and the perceived safety from banning *some* semiautomatic rifles is not worth the risk to my freedoms.

Gee, what are you talking about. You have no idea. It didn't start there, it started at the end of WWI and most nations completely exploiting Germany. When the German population was poor and angry enough, Hitler had his moment, and the people loved him. By the time, nobody took his hatred for the jews seriously. The Third Reich would have been a dictatorship even without the jew-question.
What I'm saying is very vague, too, but it shows that what you said is just wrong.

 

[TheSaint21]

From the civilian standpoint, I don't really care what happens. As a Police Officer however, yes, I want my assault rifle because it's zeroed for me. Makes a world of difference when using the "vehicle rifle" which is "generally zeroed" as we call it.