Obama may re-instate the ban on assault weapons.

[JRslinger]

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?

What about slavery?

Owning slaves violates the rights of those people to be free. Owning guns doesn't violate anyones rights.

The nanny-state mentality says we should continue to ban anything that can be misused. I say no to that. I like having significant individual freedom. The gun haters are trying to ban semi-auto rifles because they failed at banning handguns.

 

[Agayek]

the vast majority of hunters ive ran into hunt for sport. to me, that is unacceptable.

Agreed.

What about slavery?

Slavery is owning a person, not a thing.

 

[akmarksman]

Slavers/slave drivers didn't see slaves as human beings..

 

[Agayek]

That doesn't make them any less human. It just makes slavers retarded.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

That doesn't make them any less human. It just makes slavers retarded.

Second.

 

[Oldmanwillow]

Slavers/slave drivers didn't see slaves as human beings..

How did this go to slavery? jesus

Agayek are you an absolute libertarian? (aka view the non aggression axiom as an absolute)

While I am a libertarian and am not an anarchist and i do not view the non aggression axiom as an absolute. With that said i believe strongly that assult weapons shouldn't be banned in any way shape or form. Neither should drugs for that matter, but alas thats a different debate.

1) first off no item has a specific purpose besides what its being used for at the moment. Example if i use a rock to kill someone guess what its a murder weapon, by the same logic if i use a AR15 for target practice its solo purpose is for shooting at targets. the idea that some items have inherent purposes is bullshit. I can say the same things about human action but again thats another debate.

2) People will always find a way to kill each other if its not guns its knives if it isnt knives its rocks. people ill intent towards other people will always be a theme in human culture. Why should we ban item that can be used for ill will towards other people? we still are not addressing the problem, as long as human ill will exists we will still find a way to kill each other.

3) If you ban assault weapons all you are doing is keeping law abiding citizens from having theses items. Criminals of course will not follow the law and find a way around it. What is the net good that will come from outlawing theses items? Criminals will still use the black market to get them and the law abiding people will not.

4) Even if you wanted to use an the argument that "the assault weapons fueling the mexican civil war is coming from the us". The only problem that theroy is that the US is creating the capability for the civil war in the first place. If we didnt have a ban on drugs then there wouldn't be a black market for drugs. If there wasn't a black market for it the Mexican Mafia wouldn't have the funding to buy said arms. Plus why should I be punished for crimes that I didn't commit.

5) finally i will address the slavery concern. No we shouldn't be able to own slaves because it is a violation of are constitution (it goes against the bill of rights). Now before everyone cries fowl about the american civil war. The problem there was the Bill of right didn't apply to the states(guess what after the civil war the 14th admendment was adding to the constitution, making the bill of rights apply to the states and not just the federal government). Slavery wasn't part of the constitution and if anyone actually believes that they are retarded.

 

[Seekster]

We need to ban assault weapons bans. Then we dont have to make topics like this any more because they cant ban assault weapons because banning assault weapons would have been banned by a ban on assault weapons bans...ban.

 

[Agayek]

How did this go to slavery? jesus

Agayek are you an absolute libertarian? (aka view the non aggression axiom as an absolute)

While I am a libertarian and am not an anarchist and i do not view the non aggression axiom as an absolute. With that said i believe strongly that assult weapons shouldn't be banned in any way shape or form. Neither should drugs for that matter, but alas thats a different debate.

I've never actually encountered the term "non aggression axiom" before, same for absolute libertarian. My political views can basically be summarized as "That government is best which governs least". I believe each and every person should take responsibility for themselves and their actions, and hold themselves to a moral standard of at the least "do no harm to innocents".

Edit: Looked up the axiom on wikipedia, and I'd say yes. I see that as an absolute.

 

[sneakypenguin]

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?

I'm tired so I might have misunderstood your point here. I don't shoot an ar15 cause it looks cool(and it does) but because it with the .223 caliber is one smooth shooting plinking gun.

 

[Carnagath]

Sometimes I wish I lived in the US. Bigger salaries, cheaper computers, good stuff. Then I think that I might run into a psychopath carrying one minigun in each arm and an M60 in his backpack who is using them as a penis extension, feeling badass when he is carrying them... and just got dumped by his girlfriend. Greece is fine, Greece will have to do.

I think I feel more safe living in a place where murders are committed by deviants, not by the very police officers who are sworn to protect and serve.

Edit: Just speculation here: maybe if corrupt police officers feared armed retribution they wouldn't commit such atrocities.

Yes, because no innocent person has ever been shot by the police in the US, it is a Greek world first. About fear of retribution... fortunately we didn't need bazookas and gattling guns to react to this, a few tanks of gasoline and a million people on the streets for a week sent enough of a message. At least we didn't act like nothing happened out of fear that the established government would doubt our (omg, big word incoming) Patriotism.

 

[SeleneRose]

Fun fact: Miniguns and flamethrowers are totally legal in the US
Now to the topic at hand
To be honest, fully automatic weapons don't really serve a purpose, but they're already pretty damn hard to get
But semi-automatics are perfectly fine in my eyes, unless we want everyone to use muskets

 

[Super Jamz]

This whole ban is more of a case of preventative risk than anything else. What possible use would any normal person have for a fucking semi-automatic? If it's just hunting or plain target practice (for the 'law-abiding') you just get a fucking rifle, they're only slightly less dangerous.

Secondly, don't you think that the minority who use them for crimes would also be the same ones who use them to escape punishment? A criminal with an assault weapon is a hell of a lot worse than one without one.

Finally, just because they ban assault weapons does not mean they'll start banning shit like computers or phones because they'll somehow be used to commit crimes, they aren't anywhere near as dangerous or harmful and they're completely unrelated.

 

[SeleneRose]

I think a line needs to be drawn when we're talking about weapons
Are we talking Automatic or semi-automatic
Because Semiautomatic is basically anything with a clip

 

[TornadoADV]

This whole ban is more of a case of preventative risk than anything else. What possible use would any normal person have for a fucking semi-automatic? If it's just hunting or plain target practice (for the 'law-abiding') you just get a fucking rifle, they're only slightly less dangerous.

Secondly, don't you think that the minority who use them for crimes would also be the same ones who use them to escape punishment? A criminal with an assault weapon is a hell of a lot worse than one without one.

Finally, just because they ban assault weapons does not mean they'll start banning shit like computers or phones because they'll somehow be used to commit crimes, they aren't anywhere near as dangerous or harmful and they're completely unrelated.

Then please go back to using Flintlock Pistols and Muskets then. We can't have people owning Semi-Automatics because they are scary.

 

[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.

Well said. Good first post!

Thank you.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Libertairans AND anarchists. Good lord, is there truly something so enjoyable about intellectualised idiocy that nearly every fourth person indulges in it?

 

[Agayek]

Libertairans AND anarchists. Good lord, is there truly something so enjoyable about intellectualised idiocy that nearly every fourth person indulges in it?

What's so idiotic about it?

I know for a fact my ideal form of government will never happen, because there's entirely too many people that are selfish bastards. That doesn't make it any less of an ideal to strive for.

 

[Super Jamz]

This whole ban is more of a case of preventative risk than anything else. What possible use would any normal person have for a fucking semi-automatic? If it's just hunting or plain target practice (for the 'law-abiding') you just get a fucking rifle, they're only slightly less dangerous.

Secondly, don't you think that the minority who use them for crimes would also be the same ones who use them to escape punishment? A criminal with an assault weapon is a hell of a lot worse than one without one.

Finally, just because they ban assault weapons does not mean they'll start banning shit like computers or phones because they'll somehow be used to commit crimes, they aren't anywhere near as dangerous or harmful and they're completely unrelated.

Then please go back to using Flintlock Pistols and Muskets then. We can't have people owning Semi-Automatics because they are scary.

Well what actual uses do they have compared to normal firearms apart from shooting faster and wasting bullets quicker, when the 'law abiding' are only going to use a gun for things such as target practise or hunting?

 

[TornadoADV]

This whole ban is more of a case of preventative risk than anything else. What possible use would any normal person have for a fucking semi-automatic? If it's just hunting or plain target practice (for the 'law-abiding') you just get a fucking rifle, they're only slightly less dangerous.

Secondly, don't you think that the minority who use them for crimes would also be the same ones who use them to escape punishment? A criminal with an assault weapon is a hell of a lot worse than one without one.

Finally, just because they ban assault weapons does not mean they'll start banning shit like computers or phones because they'll somehow be used to commit crimes, they aren't anywhere near as dangerous or harmful and they're completely unrelated.

Then please go back to using Flintlock Pistols and Muskets then. We can't have people owning Semi-Automatics because they are scary.

Well what actual uses do they have compared to normal firearms apart from shooting faster and wasting bullets quicker, when the 'law abiding' are only going to use a gun for things such as target practise or hunting?

Uh, Semi Automatics ARE normal guns, are you still living in the 1700's?

 

[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?

I'm tired so I might have misunderstood your point here. I don't shoot an ar15 cause it looks cool(and it does) but because it with the .223 caliber is one smooth shooting plinking gun.

Not quite what I was going for.

It's addressing the way the people lurking the thread that are against such a ban keep flip-flopping between "the ban is impotent and would not stop me from owning a REAL assault rifle" and "it'd ruin the firearms industry, first this and then they'll come for my knives".