Obama may re-instate the ban on assault weapons.

[Agayek]

In all honesty I beleive all firearms besides hunting rifles and shotguns should be banned.

Both are useful in hunting and defense. Neither can be easily concealed like a handgun. Nor are they clearly made for offense and killing PEOPLE like an assault weapon.

So I can't saw the barrel off a shotgun and have it concealable in a fairly standard coat?

Concealability is a pointless argument. If it's small enough to be man-portable, someone will find a way to conceal it.

 

[Jeronus]

I doubt he does it because it cost the Democrats their seat of power in D.C. He could do it but to even try would be political suicide.

 

[Agayek]

Terrorbalances are never permanent.

If someone wants to kill someone they'll just wait 'till they drop their guard. When they eat, sleep etc. If anyone ever gets drunk, take drugs or just gets really paranoid they could kill someone. That would upset the balance and you could start a long feud possibly even a civil war.

You still wouldn't have any safety from violence though,even while the balance last, since people are bound to create groups to protect themselves and then the biggest and best equipped group would be in controll.

I think it would be better without any guns at all and the only people that could achiveve that would be the government.

But the government is exactly what you just said. It's the biggest group with the best equipment, in control because it's the biggest group.

As for the terrorbalance, that's what the government judiciary is for. Someone tries to use violence to get their way, the government hauls them before a court, finds em guilty and blows their head off. Once people take action against another, they should be punished extremely harshly. Before that, though, the government should have no say. It does not harm anyone for me to own any weapon. Just because I own it doesn't mean I have to use it against innocent people.

We will probably never agree, but the way I see it, there is nothing more valuable than individual freedom. As soon as the government starts to take it away, bad things happen.

 

[Pyre00]

In all honesty I beleive all firearms besides hunting rifles and shotguns should be banned.

Both are useful in hunting and defense. Neither can be easily concealed like a handgun. Nor are they clearly made for offense and killing PEOPLE like an assault weapon.

So I can't saw the barrel off a shotgun and have it concealable in a fairly standard coat?

Concealability is a pointless argument. If it's small enough to be man-portable, someone will find a way to conceal it.

Sawed-off shotguns are illegal already (Besides the fact they are hilariously ineffective) Yes, it's possible to cocneal almost any man-portable weapon, but far easier to conceal a handgun than a hunting rifle.

 

[pieeater911]

I find in my experiences that most of the people I know who are all for having an assault rifle in every home are the same people who I wouldn't trust with a pellet gun, let alone a weapon that can shoot thirty rounds in five seconds.

Don't get me wrong, I loves me some guns, but civilians having assault rifles is just totally unnecessary.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Don't worry, it's relatively easy to convert a semiautomatic rifle to fully automatic, so if the apocalypse/dictatorship does actually happen....make friends with a gunsmith.

By the way- don't bother with anything with a calibre higher than 7.62x39mm. It's simply unworkable on automatic fire.

 

[Agayek]

Sawed-off shotguns are illegal already (Besides the fact they are hilariously ineffective) Yes, it's possible to cocneal almost any man-portable weapon, but far easier to conceal a handgun than a hunting rifle.

My point is that you can conceal just about anything, and any gun, regardless of size or concealability, is just as lethal as any other. If you are going to ban a gun, ban them all, because any can be used for nefarious purposes. A 9mm pistol will do just as much damage as a .50 rifle. The body may be more roughed up with the latter, but they're just as dead in either case.

Be consistent, if nothing else.

 

[Zersy]

Are you for or against a ban on assault weapons?


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

Though i'm not a expert on guns my self

I think that the assualt rifle should only belong to the military it should not be made available to civilians

other guns should be fine since they all make good hunting weapons.

Overall: Banning of Assualt Rifles being Available to Civilians i'm all for (Although if you had a really good reason and a license then maybe i don't mind it because Guns are always badass)

 

[matnatz]

Well, in the UK they're probably considering a new law in which we aren't allowed to have square tables anymore, everything must be padded. So I think that maybe he should get rid of such things.

 

[Inarticulate_Underachiever]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[AceDiamond]

I find in my experiences that most of the people I know who are all for having an assault rifle in every home are the same people who I wouldn't trust with a pellet gun, let alone a weapon that can shoot thirty rounds in five seconds.

Don't get me wrong, I loves me some guns, but civilians having assault rifles is just totally unnecessary.

Exactly this. I heard on the news about a 63-year-old woman calling gun stores saying she needed as much ammo as possible for her AK because she was afraid of Obama passing gun bans.

Please tell me what Senior Citizen needs a Kalashnikov. Gonna make sure you get the good seat at bingo night?

If you think you need more than a pistol or shotgun to defend your home/hunt game, you are doing it wrong.

And don't get me started on the Militia thing. People seem to too easily forget that the attempted uprisings against the fledgling US Government (Shays', Whiskey, etc.) were crushed despite the lack of a fully organized army. If you're honestly going to tell me the crazies out in Montana or whatever are better disciplined and better equipped than all 3 branches of the US Armed Forces, then I have some prime real-estate in Florida you may be interested in. And just because one person or group says something is corrupt doesn't mean it is. I mean granted, the Federal Government has major problems but I doubt armed insurrection will solve them. Especially an armed insurrection by weekend warriors who don't know dick about running a country in any direction but "into the ground"

 

[lonercs]

Good! No one should own an assault weapon. There is no reason (good reason) that a person should own something that was design only to kill people. I get that you may want one for show, but there should still be a ban on a weapon like that. There is a reason why Americans are stereotype as "gun crazed". That's because we get people who want extremely deadly weapons in their homes, and with make a huge deal when the government don't want us to own something that was design to kill people. You want to go hunting, get a hunting rifle, not a war-grade weapon. I believe a hunter should be able to keep hunting weapons. However, last time I checked, an AK-47 or M4-Carbine wasn't used to kill a deer.

Side Note: Before anyone says anything stupid. I'm American and I find owning guns stupid. I'm not a fan of them nor, am I gun-crazed. So anyone that's reading this that's not American...we are not all idiots.

 

[Cliff_m85]

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.

Making them illegal means that those who don't mind the title of 'criminal' will only be able to get them.

Obama's reasoning is to stop violence due to drug wars in America.....hey genius, how about you legalize pot and end some of those gang wars?


If you honestly believe making assault rifles illegal mean that the CRIMINALS using them to sell drugs ILLEGALLY won't ILLEGALLY get an assault rifle to continue CRIMINAL actions, you're a bit nuts.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Good! No one should own an assault weapon. There is no reason (good reason) that a person should own something that was design only to kill people. I get that you may want one for show, but there should still be a ban on a weapon like that. There is a reason why Americans are stereotype as "gun crazed". That's because we get people who want extremely deadly weapons in their homes, and with make a huge deal when the government don't want us to own something that was design to kill people. You want to go hunting, get a hunting rifle, not a war-grade weapon. I believe a hunter should be able to keep hunting weapons. However, last time I checked, an AK-47 or M4-Carbine wasn't used to kill a deer.

Side Note: Before anyone says anything stupid. I'm American and I find owning guns stupid. I'm not a fan of them nor, am I gun-crazed. So anyone that's reading this that's not American...we are not all idiots.

I'd say you said alot stupid there, sometimes Americans need to kill people. What happens when we need to stand up to the government? Send them a strongly worded postcard?

From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
--Thomas Jefferson--

 

[Mullahgrrl]

...you can still bear arms...

In the context of a what?

 

[Glerken]

Sure, you don't need an automatic weapon to protect your house from intruders.

 

[Gruthar]

So instead of calling me a gun crazed idiot, I was wondering if someone could explain to me what the difference between an 'assault' weapon and a hunting weapon is. You know, address the point - this supposedly being a debate and all - instead of simply dispensing insults. Please don't just keep repeating crap like "American's don't need assault rifles" and "assault rifles are only used to kill people." The 'assault' aspect of it is poorly defined, and I use my AK for target shooting, which is as non-violent as it gets. Sure, I could use another rifle, but it's neither as fun or as challenging. Or is this thread just a flame war? If so, I didn't get the memo.

I would bet most of the people here wouldn't be so quick to ban firearms if they actually went out to the range one day. My opinions sure changed once I got my first rifle.

 

[Agayek]

Exactly this. I heard on the news about a 63-year-old woman calling gun stores saying she needed as much ammo as possible for her AK because she was afraid of Obama passing gun bans.

Please tell me what Senior Citizen needs a Kalashnikov. Gonna make sure you get the good seat at bingo night?

If you think you need more than a pistol or shotgun to defend your home/hunt game, you are doing it wrong.

It has nothing to do with defending yourself or the ability to form militia. It's about the government overstepping it's bounds. Government has no right to dictate what you can or cannot own, say or think. The only thing government has the right to do is curtail your actions with aforementioned weapons.

Good! No one should own an assault weapon. There is no reason (good reason) that a person should own something that was design only to kill people. I get that you may want one for show, but there should still be a ban on a weapon like that. There is a reason why Americans are stereotype as "gun crazed". That's because we get people who want extremely deadly weapons in their homes, and with make a huge deal when the government don't want us to own something that was design to kill people. You want to go hunting, get a hunting rifle, not a war-grade weapon. I believe a hunter should be able to keep hunting weapons. However, last time I checked, an AK-47 or M4-Carbine wasn't used to kill a deer.

Side Note: Before anyone says anything stupid. I'm American and I find owning guns stupid. I'm not a fan of them nor, am I gun-crazed. So anyone that's reading this that's not American...we are not all idiots.

See above. The government has absolutely no right to tell private citizens how to live their lives.

How is "we don't want you to own guns, so we're banning them" any different from "we don't want you to own any literature that contradicts us, so we're banning them"? It's a very steep, easy fall once you begin making exceptions. Absolutely the only thing government has the right to is to stop people from infringing on another's life and freedoms.

On a side note: Those hunting rifles you mentioned are exactly the same as the "assault weapons" being discussed. The most popular hunting rifle last I heard is a semi-automatic .226 rifle. If you support the ban on assault weapons, at least be consistent and be against all firearms.

 

[llewgriff]

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.

It's a welshman, you can kill someone from wales in yorkshire between the hours of 12 and 4am with a bow. I think they should be able to keep their assault rifles it's no like killing people with an assult rife is any different than with a handgun or a shot gun and as some people have pointed out it kinda goes against their second ammendment rights. However going out and buying something just beacuse it's going to be banned is just stupid.

 

[MercenaryCanary]

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.