Obama may re-instate the ban on assault weapons.

[Travdelosmuertos]

Not all of us that are pro-gun supported the Patriot Act. In essence, it seems like a good idea, but it is simply more invasion of privacy by the government. Bush was a bad president for more reasons that just that, but Obama is even worse.

Racial profiling? Are you saying where Arabic-looking people are searched more often than other ethnicities? Kind of weird that we would do that when there were all different types of ethnicities were involved in the 9/11 attacks... oh wait.

I didn't mean to imply that *all* pro-gun people supported the Patriot Act. I said everyone that I can name. I thought that enough of a preface, but turns out it wasn't.

Did police officers start searching every white male after Ted Kazinsky and Timothy McVeigh? Racial profiling and suspension of habeas corpus is illegal at best, and tyrannical at worst. People keep bringing up the slippery slope argument. One push, from any direction, can set you down that slope. Suspension of habeas corpus for suspected terrorists can eventually land as suspension of your own right to habeas corpus. It's the same argument as what I've been given here for assault weapons.

 

[Gladion]

Also Stalin killed a hell of a lot more people than Hitler did, (regarding your largest loss of life comment).

Not trying to be cynical, but Stalin also had a hell of a lot more time than Hitler.

Racial profiling? Are you saying where Arabic-looking people are searched more often than other ethnicities? Kind of weird that we would do that when there were all different types of ethnicities were involved in the 9/11 attacks... oh wait.

That's a good reason to alienate an entire religion along with their followers and people who look a like they came from arabian regions alright. Great logic. I know Americans have do defend themselves but you could at least try to hide your xenophobia.

 

[Audemas]

First of all who are you to decide what people need? And yes there are good reasons for civilians to own them.

The better armed a population is, the less likely they are to be oppressed by their government. The would be tyrants are afraid of getting shot, which is why a well armed population is a good thing.

Last time I checked, people could still kill people in power with just a pistol(William McKinley, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, R.F.K., Franz Ferdinand(The Archduke of Austria, NOT the musician.))and some people have been killed with just a legal rifle(M.L.K.) so why do we need weapons like assault rifles. And while I do agree that we should exercise our right to bear arms, some recent events involving shootings of unarmed civilians,(if you've been paying attention to the news recently, you should have an idea of what I'm talking about.)has me thinking that we American's could do with some gun regulation.

 

[kawligia]

Not all of us that are pro-gun supported the Patriot Act. In essence, it seems like a good idea, but it is simply more invasion of privacy by the government. Bush was a bad president for more reasons that just that, but Obama is even worse.

Racial profiling? Are you saying where Arabic-looking people are searched more often than other ethnicities? Kind of weird that we would do that when there were all different types of ethnicities were involved in the 9/11 attacks... oh wait.

I didn't mean to imply that *all* pro-gun people supported the Patriot Act. I said everyone that I can name. I thought that enough of a preface, but turns out it wasn't.

Did police officers start searching every white male after Ted Kazinsky and Timothy McVeigh? Racial profiling and suspension of habeas corpus is illegal at best, and tyrannical at worst. People keep bringing up the slippery slope argument. One push, from any direction, can set you down that slope. Suspension of habeas corpus for suspected terrorists can eventually land as suspension of your own right to habeas corpus. It's the same argument as what I've been given here for assault weapons.

I am fully in favor of the 2nd Amendment and I HATE the "Patriot Act." That act is a disgusting invasion of privacy that gives way too much power to the federal government.

Anyway, to respond to the "why do you need those" questions:

1st, as I said before, allowing one type of weapon to be banned WILL lead to other types of weapons being banned for other reasons. Next will be handguns because they can be easily concealed. Then, shotguns because the spray can hurt bystanders. Then, finally, they will point to the remaining guns because the individual bans did NOT decrease crime. Now, all guns are banned.

2nd, sometimes a handgun or shotgun might not be enough. I was in the National Guard during Katrina. After a severe natural disaster like that, the rule of law is all but out the window. There are violent looters everywhere and they don't travel alone. I would never even have considered going out there with anything less than a long-range rifle with plenty of rounds.

3rd, part of the reason for having weapons is self defense. The other part is a balance of power. The government is supposed to be run by the people through the representatives. If the people had no power to oppose a government that ceases to represent THEM and instead becomes tyrannical, the people will need a means to take back control. As long as that balance of power exists, the government could never even try to run amok. Disarming the citizens is a PREREQUISITE to tyranny. The people who drafted the 2nd Amendment were WELL aware of this and made a point to ensure that the people could be armed individually to defend themselves and form a militia if needed. (Citizen militia as opposed to the professional standing army of the government.)

4th, even if you are skeptical of all of the above, there is no benefit to be achieved from this ban. The assault weapons in question ARE NOT MACHINE GUNS. Fully automatic machine guns are ALREADY completely illegal. These rifles are only semi-automatic just like a pistol. The only difference is that they have a longer range, are more accurate, and hold a few more rounds. Also, most criminals do not use assault weapons. They prefer weapons that are easily concealed. Drug cartels use illegally obtained assault rifles and machine guns and are ALREADY in violation of law. That doesn't stop them. A ban will only disarm civilians who are not using them to commit crimes. There is no actual benefit!

 

[Agayek]

Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source to quote, but this is getting far too off-topic and I know what you're trying to say anyways, let's better carry on.
I'm not sure what you think politicians are, but they're most certainly not saturday-morning cartoon villains. Most of them hate dictatorship, believe it or not, besides that it's not so easy to dictate a country in the western world any more. A new dictatorship in Germany? I doubt the other countries would just roll with that.
Yeah, the government lies A LOT but they don't do it because they're evil and want to opress us - the reason is money.
I get the feeling you're just angry because your gun might get taken away from you. How could you be serious by saying prohibiting guns would be in favor of fascism?

Don't mean to offend you, sorry if I did. This just makes me furious - how can you defend something that was made purely for the reason to kill? No matter if it's "bad guys" or not. In most other countries, there are no guns at home. Why are you so obsessed with those?

I don't even own a gun, and I'm not defending people who do own them. I'm standing up and saying the government does not have the right to decide what a person is allowed to own. Replace gun with any other item in the known universe, and my stance will be exactly the same.

I am as right wing as it is humanly possible to be. I firmly believe in anarchy. Men ruling themselves, by themselves, for themselves, and holding themselves to the minimal moral standard of not harming others. Any proposition that increases government control will be met with vehement protest by myself.

Edit: Yes, I am aware that politicians are not Snidely Whiplash. There likely isn't some grand conspiracy designed to take away our freedoms and liberties and install someone in a place of power. That does not mean it will not happen in the future. It could be happening now, or it may never happen. I don't know. What I do know is that I will not trust my freedoms to people I have never met and who's opinions and beliefs I am forced to accept the media's representation of. I do not trust government, in any form.

Which most pro-gun people I can name supported whole-heartedly and told me that,"this is America, love it or leave it!" I used to quote the same Ben Franklin sayings quoted in this very thread to support my argument and they wouldn't have it.

It's funny how people think. Take away others' civil liberties (racial profiling and suspension of habeas corpus after 9/11) and every one turns a blind eye. Take away my guns, and god damn it, it's TYRANNY!

The Patriot Act was a travesty and whoever devised it should be shot. You are 100% correct about it, and I never have nor will support it.

 

[Pscyon]

I'm not going to read through every post of this thread, so the stuff I say might simply be echo'ing tons of people before me, but anyhoo. As a "gun nut" (your words) I must say I'm surprised at your enlightened view on this, rather than going "oh teh noes, that Obama taking my guns!!11!1". Most people would indeed not need an assault rifle for anything short of criminal activities, and for personal defense a pistol is enough.
The average person is easily put into place by the mere glance at a firearm or a single bullet should it go that far, and a pistol is plenty for that. Also, any American that whines about this is an ungrateful idiot. Most countries don't allow civilians firearms for anything short of hunting, and even in the ones that does, it is certainly not a constitutional right. I wish it was a "right" here as it is over there, but it's not, very few people have firearms and somehow we manage to get by quite well.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Also, to all the people that are adamant about assault rifles being banned on account of "scary aesthetics", would one be correct to assume that your opposition to such a ban is based on your desire to purchase a weapon based purely on aesthetic value over function?

 

[Altorin]

I think that people who would want to own an assault rifle should be looked at critically.. It's probably the most extremist thing you can own..

That being said, I prefer it when laws actually provide a service to the community, and more gun laws don't do anything to help the community - law abiding, sane people don't go on killing sprees, no matter how much they like guns, or how many guns they own. Gun laws don't effect criminals.

 

[TornadoADV]

Also, to all the people that are adamant about assault rifles being banned on account of "scary aesthetics", would one be correct to assume that your opposition to such a ban is based on your desire to purchase a weapon based purely on aesthetic value over function?

FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR DESIRED DIETY, ASSAULT RIFLES ARE NOT BEING BANNED, BUT SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES WITH EXTERNAL MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE IN SUCH A WAY TO MAKE THEM APPEAR SCARY SUCH AS PISTOL GRIPS, MAGAZINES, MUZZLE BRAKES AND MODIFIED STOCKS.

Also, Assault Rifles aren't banned from civilian use in the USA, it's just that new automatic weapons cannot be manufactured for civilian use and the owner must have a Class III license.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Also, to all the people that are adamant about assault rifles being banned on account of "scary aesthetics", would one be correct to assume that your opposition to such a ban is based on your desire to purchase a weapon based purely on aesthetic value over function?

FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR DESIRED DIETY, ASSAULT RIFLES ARE NOT BEING BANNED, BUT SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES WITH EXTERNAL MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE IN SUCH A WAY TO MAKE THEM APPEAR SCARY SUCH AS PISTOL GRIPS, MAGAZINES, MUZZLE BRAKES AND MODIFIED STOCKS.

Also, Assault Rifles aren't banned from civilian use in the USA, it's just that new automatic weapons cannot be manufactured for civilian use and the owner must have a Class III license.

As you didn't address my post, I feel that your quoting of it was unnecessary.

 

[Jonny The Kay]

I think weapons go beyond practicality once they become an automatic weapon. Unless your in a war of course.

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

My neighbor has a whole arsenal of weapons, I'd love to see his reaction.

 

[TornadoADV]

Also, to all the people that are adamant about assault rifles being banned on account of "scary aesthetics", would one be correct to assume that your opposition to such a ban is based on your desire to purchase a weapon based purely on aesthetic value over function?

FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR DESIRED DIETY, ASSAULT RIFLES ARE NOT BEING BANNED, BUT SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES WITH EXTERNAL MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE IN SUCH A WAY TO MAKE THEM APPEAR SCARY SUCH AS PISTOL GRIPS, MAGAZINES, MUZZLE BRAKES AND MODIFIED STOCKS.

Also, Assault Rifles aren't banned from civilian use in the USA, it's just that new automatic weapons cannot be manufactured for civilian use and the owner must have a Class III license.

As you didn't address my post, I feel that your quoting of it was unnecessary.

Actually it DOES address your post because Assault Rifles aren't the firearms being banned by this proposed bill, but semi-automatic rifles that have a scary look to them.

 

[KaZZaP]

I'm standing up and saying the government does not have the right to decide what a person is allowed to own. Replace gun with any other item in the known universe, and my stance will be exactly the same.

What about heroin, or nukes, or a vial of anthrax?

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Also, to all the people that are adamant about assault rifles being banned on account of "scary aesthetics", would one be correct to assume that your opposition to such a ban is based on your desire to purchase a weapon based purely on aesthetic value over function?

FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR DESIRED DIETY, ASSAULT RIFLES ARE NOT BEING BANNED, BUT SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES WITH EXTERNAL MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE IN SUCH A WAY TO MAKE THEM APPEAR SCARY SUCH AS PISTOL GRIPS, MAGAZINES, MUZZLE BRAKES AND MODIFIED STOCKS.

Also, Assault Rifles aren't banned from civilian use in the USA, it's just that new automatic weapons cannot be manufactured for civilian use and the owner must have a Class III license.

As you didn't address my post, I feel that your quoting of it was unnecessary.

Actually it DOES address your post because Assault Rifles aren't the firearms being banned by this proposed bill, but semi-automatic rifles that have a scary look to them.

So, by your logic, true assault weapons would be left alone, and semi-automatic sporting weapons would be banned?

 

[Paragon Fury]

As much flak as I'm going to get for this, yes I think President Obama will, and yes I think he should. As always though I attempt to reach a middle ground in these kinds of situations - while he shouldn't ban them completely, he should make it expotenially harder to obtain them.

Its not that I hate weapons- I just don't like the logic an thinking that says something this potenially expotenially more dangerous then other items of its kind shouldn't have some kind of limitations.

 

[Agayek]

What about heroin, or nukes, or a vial of anthrax?

The government should not regulate who can own any of those.

They should of course regulate and punish harmful actions taken with such items, preferably in excruciatingly painful ways, especially for the latter 2, but they should not outlaw owning anything.

Edit:

So, by your logic, true assault weapons would be left alone, and semi-automatic sporting weapons would be banned?

What he's saying is that true assault weapons are already illegal. The proposed bill is completely ignoring them in favor of the semiautomatics that look scary.

 

[Liverandbacon]

What we must remember is that the so called "assault weapons ban" is not a ban on automatic weapons. That is a completely separate piece of legislation which has been in place for ages. This ban just bans scary-looking guns. That's like banning a car that has a pretend rocket engine on it for using an illegal method of propulsion.

The assault weapons ban pretty much only bans certain cosmetic and ergonomic features. The only reason it's even called an "assault weapon" ban is to look good on a politician's record. The ban banned the following:
Folding stocks (ok, this could be used to conceal a weapon, but you could conceal a pistol even more easily)
Pistol grips on non-pistol weapons (an ergonomic feature. Banning this doesn't do shit.)
Flash Suppressors (does this make bullets kill better? I think not.
Bayonet lugs (You could just duct tape a bayonet to a gun if you wanted. Also, many accessories such as flashlights mount on these, so they can be important.)

None of these features makes a gun easier to use in a killing. Any legal, non "assault weapon" would do the job just as easily. However, many people support the ban because they don't know what it even does. They just hear the words "assault weapon", and think "wow, those weapons must be more dangerous than other ones!" Wrong. Any weapon can be used in an assault. They're weapons.

Just saying this to clear up the confusion some people have regarding the term "assault weapon".

Which most pro-gun people I can name supported whole-heartedly and told me that,"this is America, love it or leave it!" I used to quote the same Ben Franklin sayings quoted in this very thread to support my argument and they wouldn't have it.

It's funny how people think. Take away others' civil liberties (racial profiling and suspension of habeas corpus after 9/11) and every one turns a blind eye. Take away my guns, and god damn it, it's TYRANNY!

Those pro-gun people you know are idiots then. The Patriot Act is a disgusting piece of legislation. However, what you said could be applied to many people who want to ban guns altogether. The fact is, you can't support the violation of one part of the constitution, and ***** about the violation of another. I find people who are pro-1st amendment and anti-2nd amendment to be just as annoying as those who are pro-2nd and anti-1st.

With all that said, I'm not even a fan of guns. I just feel that the hypocrisy and ignorance in this thread is running rampant.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Also, to all the people that are adamant about assault rifles being banned on account of "scary aesthetics", would one be correct to assume that your opposition to such a ban is based on your desire to purchase a weapon based purely on aesthetic value over function?

FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR DESIRED DIETY, ASSAULT RIFLES ARE NOT BEING BANNED, BUT SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES WITH EXTERNAL MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE IN SUCH A WAY TO MAKE THEM APPEAR SCARY SUCH AS PISTOL GRIPS, MAGAZINES, MUZZLE BRAKES AND MODIFIED STOCKS.

Also, Assault Rifles aren't banned from civilian use in the USA, it's just that new automatic weapons cannot be manufactured for civilian use and the owner must have a Class III license.

As you didn't address my post, I feel that your quoting of it was unnecessary.

Actually it DOES address your post because Assault Rifles aren't the firearms being banned by this proposed bill, but semi-automatic rifles that have a scary look to them.

So, by your logic, true assault weapons would be left alone, and semi-automatic sporting weapons would be banned?

True assault weapons (as stated many times before) ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL! THESE ARE NOT REALLY MACHINE GUNS THAT ARE BEING BANNED HERE! SEMI-AUTO AND FULL AUTO ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS!

And no, my objection to the ban is based on the fact it doesn't do anything but ban a few cruddy civvy versions of weapons that are easily available on the black market. I have no desire to own a civvy AK-47 (have shot one, didn't care for it). If they want to ban all semi-auto weapons, they should try to push that ban through. They should NOT ban a couple of weapons which are largely inferior to the "hunting" weapons which are readily available for purchase at your local drug store.

Besides, people who want to use guns to commit crimes want something that can be concealed. They do NOT want an AR-15, which fires tiny .223 rounds and can't be concealed for crap.

 

[Striker Vulsine]

I had to register to this site just to say this.

Why am I, a legal United States Citizen who has no criminal history in any of the 50 states or territories, nor a criminal history with the United States government, potentially going to be punished.

If I wish to purchase a semi-automatic rifle because I want to for any reason, I have the legal and inalienable right to do so. If I happen to use that rifle illegally, then I should be punished to the full extent of the law. Any damage I happen to do to life or property is the cost of freedom.


I would like to put this argument another way. PC's exist in the vast majority of American homes. While firearms are not as prevalent, millions of people do own them in America. Some people own several PC's for themselves. This also true of firearms. Almost every one of them is used to commit no crime, but a small faction of people use them to steal identity, publish child pornography, commit fraud, stalk, and a host of other felonies. Likewise, almost every firearm is used to commit no crime, but a tiny fraction of people use them to commit assault, murder, rape, robbery, grand theft auto, and other felonies. Should a person be limited in the choice of computer they can own because it MIGHT be used to commit a crime, might have hardware or software that COULD make it more adept at being used for a crime, or should your computer activity be monitored by authority just because you MIGHT commit a crime with it?
Again, should a person be limited in their choice of firearm because it MIGHT be used to commit a crime, might have attachments that COULD make it more adept at being used for a crime, or should their possessions be inventoried and registered just because they MIGHT be used to commit a crime?

If you answered yes, then I pray you are never risen to a position of power, because you are against the very principles of the United State of America.