Obama may re-instate the ban on assault weapons.

[headshotcatcher]

Damn, are you people really that close-minded?
If someone is a criminal he can get his guns, whether they are registrated or not (legally bought or not).
In countries where you are not allowed to have guns there is still gun crime you know..

 

[Istickell]

That's the saddest thing I've ever read. How come every other country where most people aren't gun-toting penis-extension phallic symbol wielding maniacs

So this is what all Americans are??? Are you sure? Your a very ignorant man. Because I could go anywhere in public in my town and snap a picture showing that the only gun-toting idiots are a couple of our police officers (joke)
Kidding. You wont see anybody toting a gun around here, and i live in IOWA. There are guns in my home, but I dont go around holding them and shooting at stuff. They are locked up in gunsafes.
The assualt weapons ban is pointless as the small percent of gun crimes that are committed are crimes with HAND GUNS.

 

[Agayek]

While I fully agree that assault rifles are completely unnecessary in civilian hands, I still don't think the government should ban them.

Anyone that uses one to break the law should be shot on sight, but I cannot agree with the outright ban of anything.

Maybe I'm just crazy, but I firmly believe in the reduction of government power, and the ability to ban something, even assault rifles, goes completely counter to that.

 

[JustEric]

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.

You DO realize that there's really no such thing as an "assault weapon," correct? It's a term invented by the anti-gunners to scare people into thinking their anti-gun legislation was justified. Consider yourself fooled.

Along the same lines, the "assault weapon" classification defies reason. There are weapons in there that shouldn't be (going by the definition concocted by those that fabricated the term), and weapons missing from the list. At least be consistent if you're going to make shit up.

That being said, since when do I have to justify owning something when it is my natural right to do so? Do you need to justify your freedom of speech? What about your right to not have illegal search and seizure performed upon you? Do you need to justify your desire to not implicate yourself under oath in a court of law?

I have never understood (and barring severe head trauma or a lobotomy, probably never will understand) the idea that we have to justify our rights to someone else.

 

[sneakypenguin]

For those that want to learn more this is an excellent visual presentation of the problem, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

The term assault weapons is used to drum up images of firearms that are already illegal, AK-47s M-16s and the like are commonly referred to as Assault Rifles. Automatic military weapons are already illegal for all but those who carry an extremely hard to get license. The last time they were banned Congress defined "assault weapons" as semi-automatic weapons with certain military-style secondary features such as flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, and pistol grips.

Now if people would just watch it and recognize the difference and similarities of guns, and not fall victim to this hype about the dreaded "assault weapon".

I really like the (mini 14?) conversion that shows how purely aesthetic changes to a firearm make it seem "scary" or "no legitimate function"

 

[supermaster1337]

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.

That's the saddest thing I've ever read. How come every other country where most people aren't gun-toting penis-extension phallic symbol wielding maniacs is literally doing better then USA in most things that matter? Yeah.

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.

He may and should ban assault rifles, but he wont get rid of sidearms. Unlike our previous president Obama cares about the Constitution. He will not get rid of the second amendment. he is not anti-gun, he is pro-saftey. We will keep our hand guns. there is no need for personal assault rifles.

And there is difference between socialistic state and monarchy. Your country isn't capitalistic. No, it's not. And you can trust me, if it was a purely capitalistic state you would want your ticket out of there real fast.

 

[Aardvark Soup]

Even though I can understand (but completely disagree with) the reasoning behind Americans owning a handgun for protection, where the hell do you need an assault weapon for?! For hunting? What are you hunting? Dinosaurs? If you really need to compensate for something, just buy a big car.

 

[JustEric]

The assualt weapons ban is pointless as the small percent of gun crimes that are committed are crimes with HAND GUNS.

Correction: with ILLEGAL hand guns. In other words, these people are criminals, so they don't pay any attention to the law. They ignored the law that said, "Don't kill/rob/rape/etc.," so ignoring the law that said, "Don't own/carry/use a gun" wasn't really a big deal to them.

Gun bans are pointless. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

Go ahead...cite one instance where a gun ban saved lives. One instance where someone said, "You know, I really want to go kill some folks, but dangit, guns are illegal here. Guess I'll have to find something else to do."

 

[joystickjunki3]

This would be the point where we should debate if it is indeed a right or a privilege that we have bestowed on our presidents.

I'm very mixed on whether or not assault weapons should be banned. I think that the 2nd Amendment clearly states that militias (the citizens) should be able to own whatever sort of defense they feel necessary, but on the other hand I find myself wondering why some citizens would want an M14.

 

[Agayek]

Less access to guns, less murder. Win-win to me.

I don't really care if you're a Gun Nut, that's a waste of a Perk in Fallout 3, imo.

Are you really so ignorant as to believe murder can only be committed with a gun?

I can beat someone to death with my bare hands, and they're not any less dead because I didn't shoot them.

If people really want someone dead, they will kill them, regardless of what tools are available.

 

[Player 2]

For the ban!
Apparently, a hand gun isn't enough protection for your average American these days.
What I'm really angry about is the proposed WMD ban. I mean how are we supposed to protect our families from burglars without a personal Hydrogen bomb ?

and how are we supposed to hunt the super-robot-dinosaurs? they're everywhere these days.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Less access to guns, less murder. Win-win to me.

I don't really care if you're a Gun Nut, that's a waste of a Perk in Fallout 3, imo.

Are you really so ignorant as to believe murder can only be committed with a gun?

I can beat someone to death with my bare hands, and they're not any less dead because I didn't shoot them.

If people really want someone dead, they will kill them, regardless of what tools are available.

No. But a gun offers power. And power tempts.

 

[Pimppeter2]

In some ways I agree with you, but in someways I disagree. This is a real hard topic for me, theres to many buts.

 

[Agayek]

No. But a gun offers power. And power tempts.

Then if they fall to temptation, shoot them.

There's 2 things that seem to have been ignored thus far:

1) Guns do not kill people. Those who pull the trigger do.
2) It is not a very large distance from "stricter X control" to total governmental control and a dictatorship. Any sort of ban by the government just brings us that much closer to an oligarchy and, eventually, a total lack of freedom.

 

[JustEric]

No. But a gun offers power. And power tempts.

Anyone who would illegally kill another person with a gun will have no qualms about obtaining that gun illegally. The only thing a gun ban does is take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens; the kind that would only use those guns against one human to protect another human life. What if one of those lives someday is your own? Are you going to give a crap whether it was a hand gun or an "assault weapon" that saved your life?

Gun bans have taken more lives than they've saved (the latter is zero, in case you were wondering).

There was a school shooting many years ago (I can't recall when or where, but can dig up the info if anyone's truly interested). Several children were killed, more children and some faculty were injured. One of the teachers on duty that day normally carried a gun in his car. One day, someone thought it would be a good idea to make the school a "gun free zone" (oddly enough, the shooter didn't seem to be impaired by this restriction). The teacher continued to carry the gun in his car, but had to park something like 2 miles away. When the shooting began, he had to run ~4 miles round-trip to retrieve his gun and return to take out the shooter. He could have prevented all of the deaths, and most (if not all) of the injuries had his car (with gun) had been in the parking lot.

Every gun-grabber who has ever lived has the blood of these children on their hands. Any of you care to share with us how that feels?

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

No. But a gun offers power. And power tempts.

Then if they fall to temptation, shoot them.

There's 2 things that seem to have been ignored thus far:

1) Guns do not kill people. Those who pull the trigger do.
2) It is not a very large distance from "stricter X control" to total governmental control and a dictatorship. Any sort of ban by the government just brings us that much closer to an oligarchy and, eventually, a total lack of freedom.

Hey, this is the kind of thing we can talk about for days and get nowhere with, so this will be my last post concerning this. I know that the person who pulls the trigger does the killing, so I believe that there should be no trigger to pull. If they use a knife, so be it. It just makes it easier for law enforcement to catch them without losing men in the line of duty when they don't have a gun. And some things should be controlled by the government. Like lethal weaponry.

 

[Agayek]

Hey, this is the kind of thing we can talk about for days and get nowhere with, so this will be my last post concerning this. I know that the person who pulls the trigger does the killing, so I believe that there should be no trigger to pull. If they use a knife, so be it. It just makes it easier for law enforcement to catch them without losing men in the line of duty when they don't have a gun. And some things should be controlled by the government. Like lethal weaponry.

Fair enough. The way I see it though, the dangerous things should be controlled by human stupidity. Let them kill themselves and the world will be a better place for it.

If someone threatens you, respond with equal, if not greater, force and people will stop threatening each other. Hopefully out of human decency, but at the least out of fear of immediate retaliation.

 

[Aardvark Soup]

The assualt weapons ban is pointless as the small percent of gun crimes that are committed are crimes with HAND GUNS.

Gun bans are pointless. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

Go ahead...cite one instance where a gun ban saved lives. One instance where someone said, "You know, I really want to go kill some folks, but dangit, guns are illegal here. Guess I'll have to find something else to do."

How about the cases where a child plays with a gun and shoots itself? Or when someone shoots someone else with a nearby gun during a fight and immediately regrets it? Or one of the many possible misunderstandings or accidents where someone gets unintentionally shot?

Also, criminals would use their guns less quickly if they wouldn't suspect every citizen of carrying a firearm himself.

 

[Hedberger]

Hey, this is the kind of thing we can talk about for days and get nowhere with, so this will be my last post concerning this. I know that the person who pulls the trigger does the killing, so I believe that there should be no trigger to pull. If they use a knife, so be it. It just makes it easier for law enforcement to catch them without losing men in the line of duty when they don't have a gun. And some things should be controlled by the government. Like lethal weaponry.

Fair enough. The way I see it though, the dangerous things should be controlled by human stupidity. Let them kill themselves and the world will be a better place for it.

If someone threatens you, respond with equal, if not greater, force and people will stop threatening each other. Hopefully out of human decency, but at the least out of fear of immediate retaliation.

Doesn't that mean an endless spiral of threats? Sort of like the cold-war balance but this time it's everyone threatening everyone.

 

[The Gardener]

Hey Obama: Suck my machine gun.

Why do civilians need assault weapons? They have the right to use the most effective weapons to defend their family, themselves and their property. A criminal does not obey the law, thusly, will have the most effective weapons they can get. So a civilian deserves to have the same ability to defend as a criminal does to attack.

Also, to people who say you can't fight the government with your 'civilian' weapons, you're right. But there's an expression from New Hampshire you should read: 'Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.'

Also also, inb4flames from people who usually don't own guns, haven't fired guns and haven't been in a real-world combat scenario (everyone else might actually have a valid point).