Obama Backs New Assault Weapon Ban
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]lots of stuffWasdie
I'm not going to bother arguing with you because you're really pushing to ban weapons that you feel are too deadly.
We're already doing that with drugs. Why not with weapons?
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]I think the logic is more along the lines of there not being any legitimate reasons for regular citizens to have assault rifles, so it's a good place to start that makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Sure, they commit a small percentage of the overall gun crimes, but they tend to be the ones used most often in massacre type crimes where someone snaps and shoots up a school or what not. As soon as someone can come up with a legitimate reason why my next door neighbor would really need an AK-47 that doesn't involve a crazy paranoid fantasy about future government tyranny I may reconsider my viewpoint. except for the fact that government tyranny is the main reason the 2nd amendment is there in the first place, so you really dont need any other reasons... Actually, that's a terrible reason at least where the U.S. is concerned. I don't care what weapons your local resistance movement has access to, do you REALLY think that they're going to be able to resist the might of the U.S. Armed Forces if the government really decided to turn it's resources inward? Sure, have all the assault rifles you want. If the U.S. government was really bent on outright tyranny they'd just carpet bomb your ass. Game over. Back in the 1800s, sure, maybe you could imagine ordinary citizens having access to guns being a good check against tyranny when the U.S. was an unstable democracy and uncertain if was going to become a failed nation or not. World's changed a bit in the couple of hundred years since.Ban the guns that commit 3% of gun crimes. Yes that will solve it!
By the way, Columbine happened during the assault rifle ban. This is just pointless and utilizing something that could have been committed by any firearm as a way to push a pointless agenda that won't change a thing.
mingmao3046
[QUOTE="Wasdie"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]lots of stuffChiliDragon
I'm not going to bother arguing with you because you're really pushing to ban weapons that you feel are too deadly.
We're already doing that with drugs. Why not with weapons? Tbh, many drugs (if not all) really should not be banned. Strictly regulated and whatnot, sure, but not banned.
[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]Someone explain to me why assault weapons are more dangerous than non-assault weapons. What point are you trying to make liberals?nocoolnamejimWhy is a 9mm beretta more dangerous than one of those old Colt Peacemakers? Larger ammo clip. Longer time between reloads. Faster rate of fire. More dangerous/damage dealing ammunition possibilities. People invent new guns because they are better at killing than the older variety are. If they didn't, then the first guns invented several centuries ago would never have been improved upon. Pretty obvious point that the newer the guns, the faster they can fire and the longer the time between reloads = more dangerous. Realistically, none of those things listed matter when the target cannot fight back. Real life isn't black ops 2. A pump action rifle might take a little bit longer to cause the damage, but it will still cause the damage.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]lots of stuffChiliDragon
I'm not going to bother arguing with you because you're really pushing to ban weapons that you feel are too deadly.
We're already doing that with drugs. Why not with weapons?And how many people here, including myself, want to see the war on drugs ended because it's a waste of time that's not solving anything.
I thought one of the reasons we studied history is so that we can avoid making the same mistakes as in the past. Starting an equivalent war on guns while the war on drugs continues to gloriously fail seems counter productive.
[QUOTE="VoodooHak"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I think the logic is more along the lines of there not being any legitimate reasons for regular citizens to have assault rifles, so it's a good place to start that makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Sure, they commit a small percentage of the overall gun crimes, but they tend to be the ones used most often in massacre type crimes where someone snaps and shoots up a school or what not. As soon as someone can come up with a legitimate reason why my next door neighbor would really need an AK-47 that doesn't involve a crazy paranoid fantasy about future government tyranny I may reconsider my viewpoint. nocoolnamejim
But who are you(or anyone) to dictate who needs something and who doesn't?
Innocent until proven guilty, right? The onus is on gun control advocates to justify why I shouldn't have an AK. I mean, why is a 762x39 round not ok, but a hunting rifle chambered in .308 permissible? Is it the magazine size? It takes half a second to change out a mag. Is it the pistol grip? I still don't understand that justification in the 94 assault weapon ban. Where are the studies and research to justify any type of restriction?
I didn't hear a reason in any of that for why someone needs an assault rifle. What's a legitimate use for one? Hell, by your logic, who am I, or anyone, to dictate who needs a Rocket Launcher and who doesn't?I don't need to justify the need for explosives because they're already highly regulated with valid justification decades ago. The same with fully automatic weapons. Those have been banned since 1986.
The AK available to civilians is a sporting rifle. Whether I want to go out and shoot steel or punch holes in paper, that's my business. Maybe I want to go varmint hunting or keep to defend my property. Again, that's my business.
Do you have a good reason why I shouldn't have one? As I said, you're the one that wants to take them away, so the burden of proof is on you.
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]We're already doing that with drugs. Why not with weapons? Tbh, many drugs (if not all) really should not be banned. Strictly regulated and whatnot, sure, but not banned. Fair point, and one I partially agree with. However, a very large number of people are in favor of banning meth because it kills children. I'm wondering why that's okay, while banning guns that also kill children, is apparently unforgivable.I'm not going to bother arguing with you because you're really pushing to ban weapons that you feel are too deadly.
Rich3232
We're already doing that with drugs. Why not with weapons?[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
I'm not going to bother arguing with you because you're really pushing to ban weapons that you feel are too deadly.
Wasdie
And how many people here, including myself, want to see the war on drugs ended because it's a waste of time that's not solving anything.
I thought one of the reasons we studied history is so that we can avoid making the same mistakes as in the past. Starting an equivalent war on guns while the war on drugs continues to gloriously fail seems counter productive.
Then it comes down to education, both on guns, drugs, and making our citizens better education from children on up. But who wants to fund education these days?
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]lots of stuffWasdie
I'm not going to bother arguing with you because you're really pushing to ban weapons that you feel are too deadly.
You're not going to argue with me anymore because I logically backed you into a corner and you know it. I forced you to admit: 1. Some things ARE too deadly for ordinary citizens to have access to 2. Therefore, the debate is on WHERE to draw the line and 3. Which restrictions to put in place. You can claim whatever you want as being the actual reason you're discontinuing discussions, but this is the place you ended the discussion at. But hey, I'll actually admit your accusation. I AM pushing to ban weapons that I feel are too deadly to be widely available to just anyone who wants them. You've already agreed that you feel the same way when you acknowledged that nobody should be able to actually have ammunition for a grenade launcher. I'm a reasonable person. We require that anyone who wants to drive a car go through an extensive process to prove they're capable of using one. No reason that something similar can't be done with weapon. Deadlier the weapon the higher the burden of proof should be.I thought one of the reasons we studied history is so that we can avoid making the same mistakes as in the past. Starting an equivalent war on guns while the war on drugs continues to gloriously fail seems counter productive.WasdieFair enough. Now, please address the points in my earlier post about why you actually seem to believe that having lots of guns will protect you against the government? After all, the reason the smell of napalm in the morning smells like victory is because an assault rifle doesn't make its owner fireproof. ;)
[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]I better by a Tommy Gun now before the price goes up.Wasdie
You can buy them, but they are only semi-automatic. Fully automatic ones have been illegal since 1934.
Really? I thought there was a law in place that allowed em; as in they're grandfathered in. That can't be true, there are tons of automatic weapons in Texas.I didn't hear a reason in any of that for why someone needs an assault rifle. What's a legitimate use for one? Hell, by your logic, who am I, or anyone, to dictate who needs a Rocket Launcher and who doesn't?[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]
But who are you(or anyone) to dictate who needs something and who doesn't?
Innocent until proven guilty, right? The onus is on gun control advocates to justify why I shouldn't have an AK. I mean, why is a 762x39 round not ok, but a hunting rifle chambered in .308 permissible? Is it the magazine size? It takes half a second to change out a mag. Is it the pistol grip? I still don't understand that justification in the 94 assault weapon ban. Where are the studies and research to justify any type of restriction?
VoodooHak
I don't need to justify the need for explosives because they're already highly regulated with valid justification decades ago. The same with fully automatic weapons. Those have been banned since 1986.
The AK available to civilians is a sporting rifle. Whether I want to go out and shoot steel or punch holes in paper, that's my business. Maybe I want to go varmint hunting or keep to defend my property. Again, that's my business.
Do you have a good reason why I shouldn't have one? As I said, you're the one that wants to take them away, so the burden of proof is on you.
Sure I have a good reason why you shouldn't have one. The fact that you WANT ONE TO GO VARMINT HUNTING. Like anyone needs to be able to squeeze out a couple hundred rounds a minute to kill a rabbit.[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"] We're already doing that with drugs. Why not with weapons?jimkabrhel
And how many people here, including myself, want to see the war on drugs ended because it's a waste of time that's not solving anything.
I thought one of the reasons we studied history is so that we can avoid making the same mistakes as in the past. Starting an equivalent war on guns while the war on drugs continues to gloriously fail seems counter productive.
Then it comes down to education, both on guns, drugs, and making our citizens better education from children on up. But who wants to fund education these days?
Well we could take all of that money that anti-gun politicians are suggesting on spending onto making more criminals out of innocent people and put that into our education system. At least there it will do more than just fill up our jails.
[QUOTE="VoodooHak"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I didn't hear a reason in any of that for why someone needs an assault rifle. What's a legitimate use for one? Hell, by your logic, who am I, or anyone, to dictate who needs a Rocket Launcher and who doesn't?nocoolnamejim
I don't need to justify the need for explosives because they're already highly regulated with valid justification decades ago. The same with fully automatic weapons. Those have been banned since 1986.
The AK available to civilians is a sporting rifle. Whether I want to go out and shoot steel or punch holes in paper, that's my business. Maybe I want to go varmint hunting or keep to defend my property. Again, that's my business.
Do you have a good reason why I shouldn't have one? As I said, you're the one that wants to take them away, so the burden of proof is on you.
Sure I have a good reason why you shouldn't have one. The fact that you WANT ONE TO GO VARMINT HUNTING. Like anyone needs to be able to squeeze out a couple hundred rounds a minute to kill a rabbit. I'm sure Elmer Fudd would be a much happier man if he was armed with an AK[QUOTE="Wasdie"][QUOTE="Fightingfan"]I better by a Tommy Gun now before the price goes up.Fightingfan
You can buy them, but they are only semi-automatic. Fully automatic ones have been illegal since 1934.
Really? I thought there was a law in place that allowed em; as in they're grandfathered in. That can't be true, there are tons of automatic weapons in Texas.Grandfathered fully automatic weapons fall under different laws. They have to be registered. Whenever a gun is fully automatic, the red tape gets extremely thick.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"]Someone explain to me why assault weapons are more dangerous than non-assault weapons. What point are you trying to make liberals?DaBrainzWhy is a 9mm beretta more dangerous than one of those old Colt Peacemakers? Larger ammo clip. Longer time between reloads. Faster rate of fire. More dangerous/damage dealing ammunition possibilities. People invent new guns because they are better at killing than the older variety are. If they didn't, then the first guns invented several centuries ago would never have been improved upon. Pretty obvious point that the newer the guns, the faster they can fire and the longer the time between reloads = more dangerous. Realistically, none of those things listed matter when the target cannot fight back. Real life isn't black ops 2. A pump action rifle might take a little bit longer to cause the damage, but it will still cause the damage. True. But a rifle takes longer between shots. Which means it's easier for people to get away. Which means it takes longer to kill them. Which gives authorities more time to get there. It can mean the difference between killing, say, 25 people and 5 people. But your earlier question was why one gun is more dangerous than another. I answered it. How many rounds it can shoot and how quickly and how many different types of ammunition can be loaded into it. If one gun wasn't deadlier than another we'd have stuck with the very first one ever invented.
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
And how many people here, including myself, want to see the war on drugs ended because it's a waste of time that's not solving anything.
I thought one of the reasons we studied history is so that we can avoid making the same mistakes as in the past. Starting an equivalent war on guns while the war on drugs continues to gloriously fail seems counter productive.
Wasdie
Then it comes down to education, both on guns, drugs, and making our citizens better education from children on up. But who wants to fund education these days?
Well we could take all of that money that anti-gun politicians are suggesting on spending onto making more criminals out of innocent people and put that into our education system. At least there it will do more than just fill up our jails.
Only if the gun lobbies take some the millions they take in to fight the anti-gun politicians and put it into education too. Both sides should be contributing to making a better society.
I'm sure Elmer Fudd would be a much happier man if he was armed with an AK-Sun_Tzu-Very true, but Elmer Fudd might have been the worst shot in the history of mankind. Surely someone who actually knows how to handle a gun doesn't really need a couple of hundred rounds a minute to be able to hit their intended target?
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]I thought one of the reasons we studied history is so that we can avoid making the same mistakes as in the past. Starting an equivalent war on guns while the war on drugs continues to gloriously fail seems counter productive.ChiliDragonFair enough. Now, please address the points in my earlier post about why you actually seem to believe that having lots of guns will protect you against the government? After all, the reason the smell of napalm in the morning smells like victory is because an assault rifle doesn't make its owner fireproof. ;)
Well considering how our military and police force is structured, the chances of them actually launching any sort of attack on civilians is pretty much non existent. If they did, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should show you how futile conventional military weapons are against a small, loosely organized militia.
Our largest weapons are only useful for killing large amounts of Soviet tanks and armored vehicles. If you could somehow unleash those on people, you would have one hell of a time keeping the peace everywhere. Our military isn't large enough, or powerful enough to blanket the entire population and keep order everywhere. Both quality of firearms and number are great deterrents for any wannabe dictator.
It's a major "what-if" scenario on both sides of the argument at this point, but I like to keep a bit more faith in our founding fathers.
Only if the gun lobbies take some the millions they take in to fight the anti-gun politicians and put it into education too. Both sides should be contributing to making a better society.
jimkabrhel
I wouldn't be surprised if you actually see something like that in the next year or so. The smoking companies proved that an industry under pressure will do anything to stay afloat.
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
Only if the gun lobbies take some the millions they take in to fight the anti-gun politicians and put it into education too. Both sides should be contributing to making a better society.
Wasdie
I wouldn't be surprised if you actually see something like that in the next year or so. The smoking companies proved that an industry under pressure will do anything to stay afloat.
That would be a breath of fresh air. The comments made by the VP of the NRA don't give me much hope.
Well considering how our military and police force is structured, the chances of them actually launching any sort of attack on civilians is pretty much non existent. If they did, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should show you how futile conventional military weapons are against a small, loosely organized militia.WasdieTrue, but in both those cases they were actively trying not to harm civilians. It's a fair assumption that if our own government turns against us, civilians would be the main targets, in fact, the only targets. There would be no reason whatsoever not to carpet bomb major population centers, and before you know it, we're once again back to the fact that owning an assault rifle did absolutely nothing for the people living in the big city that was targeted by a massive air strike. If anything, the fact that most of them owned one might have been a factor in the decision to target them early on. The US defense budget is larger than all most first-world countries combined, and the notion that "an organized militia" could somehow successfully stand against it if worst comes to worst, strikes me as somewhat delusional. The US Army has a very large nuclear arsenal that is just waiting for a target... and frankly, the mental image of a local militia trying to take on an army or air force or navy base, just makes me cringe. Strapping yourself to some explosives and making a statement on your way out would be a more effective way of committing suicide.
True. But a rifle takes longer between shots. Which means it's easier for people to get away. Which means it takes longer to kill them. Which gives authorities more time to get there. It can mean the difference between killing, say, 25 people and 5 people. But your earlier question was why one gun is more dangerous than another. I answered it. How many rounds it can shoot and how quickly and how many different types of ammunition can be loaded into it. If one gun wasn't deadlier than another we'd have stuck with the very first one ever invented.nocoolnamejim
I hate to break it to you, but my 1914 Short Magazine Lee Enfield from WWIcan be fired at comparable speeds as most semi-automatic rifles, and just as accurately but with a much larger round (bigger hole in target, more range). Most well used bolt-action rifles that have been properly maintained can go through their 5-10 round magazines pretty quickly and be reloaded pretty fast.
It's a major gray area that is impossible to accurately define. Each gun and each gunowner has different capabilities to make their weapons more or less useful depending on thousands of factors. If the shooter would have used his pistols he had on him during the Sandy Hook shooting, the casualties would probably not have changed much.
Also when you start classifying certain weapons as more deadly than others, you're getting into the mentality that a crazy person would only be able to kill X man people with this gun. Really X many is too many no matter what X is. Even if we all were only allowed single shot muskets, people would still die from them. What's the difference between 1 and 100 really? You could dump all of this time and effort trying to get "assault weapons" off of the streets and then take the number of deaths in mass shootings down from 10 people to 5 people, or you could put the same time and effort finding the root cause of these mass shootings and trying to fix the source so the number of people dead is 0.
When I see somebody arguing over how deadly a weapon is and how some should be banned over others because you perceive one as being more deadly, I see misplaced priorities and is knee jerking to something they are afraid of. You still need somebody to pull the trigger. Focus on preventing them from pulling the trigger, or stabbing with the knife, or beating somebody to death, or anyway else that you commit murder should be priority #1. That may include a level of gun control like preventing criminals from owning guns by doing background checks. Closing loopholes for people to avoid background checks wherever possible. Increasing penalties for gun safety negligence.
That's my opinion on it. You cannot just magically make guns go away anymore so you need to treat the root cause of these things.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]Well considering how our military and police force is structured, the chances of them actually launching any sort of attack on civilians is pretty much non existent. If they did, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should show you how futile conventional military weapons are against a small, loosely organized militia.ChiliDragonTrue, but in both those cases they were actively trying not to harm civilians. It's a fair assumption that if our own government turns against us, civilians would be the main targets, in fact, the only targets. There would be no reason whatsoever not to carpet bomb major population centers, and before you know it, we're once again back to the fact that owning an assault rifle did absolutely nothing for the people living in the big city that was targeted by a massive air strike. If anything, the fact that most of them owned one might have been a factor in the decision to target them early on. The US defense budget is larger than all most first-world countries combined, and the notion that "an organized militia" could somehow successfully stand against it if worst comes to worst, strikes me as somewhat delusional. The US Army has a very large nuclear arsenal that is just waiting for a target... and frankly, the mental image of a local militia trying to take on an army or air force or navy base, just makes me cringe. Strapping yourself to some explosives and making a statement on your way out would be a more effective way of committing suicide.
You're still really assuming that a volunteer military would unleash hellfire on their own people. Our government is still elected officials who need to mingle with people each day. Our military is still volunteer who has family and friends that they would be ordered to kill. Even if the population cetners are bombed, that still leaves a lot of people who will probably want to defend themselves against a psycho government. A government's power comes from the people and if you're unwilling to get your people to cooperate, you don't have any power.
But I digress, we could go back and forth on this one all day.Really it boils down to trying to ban the gun that causes less than 5% of all gun crime in this nation. since 99.9% of assault weapon owners are law abiding citizens, why should we punish them?
Furthermore, gun control would not have much of an impact on existing firearms and there is no amount of money that could ever shut down the second hand market. So really it's just futile at this point. In order to keep assault weapons out of the hands of bad guys you would have to do wide scale weapon recalls. Just the economics of this don't add up. First there will be the astronomical costs of the recall and second there would be the extreme loss of value that a lot of people suffer as you're basically recalling their investments (guns don't lose value if properly maintained).
As long as the 2nd hand market stay open, your value is retained. I could actually get more money back than i've spent into my guns at this point. Shutting down 2nd hand sales would take that away from me unfairly as you turned what was a right of mine illegal.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"][QUOTE="Nuck81"]:lol: Yes, yes instead of keeping Dangerous out of the hands of crazy people, let's just send the kids to prison. Let's let all the criminals out of prison. Move the kids there, and give them all guns "just in case" I mean, if everyone had a gun, then there would be no crime. Criminals would be too scared to commit any crimes right?Nuck81
You sure made me look like a fool.
You made it pretty easyI may be wrong, but I think you missed the sarcasm in his post.[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]Someone explain to me why assault weapons are more dangerous than non-assault weapons. What point are you trying to make liberals?nocoolnamejimWhy is a 9mm beretta more dangerous than one of those old Colt Peacemakers? Larger ammo clip. Longer time between reloads. Faster rate of fire. More dangerous/damage dealing ammunition possibilities. People invent new guns because they are better at killing than the older variety are. If they didn't, then the first guns invented several centuries ago would never have been improved upon. Pretty obvious point that the newer the guns, the faster they can fire and the longer the time between reloads = more dangerous. Explain this. How do any of those weapons, or even the weapons you want banned, with a round in the chamber, jump up off a table and shoot someone by themselves?
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] True. But a rifle takes longer between shots. Which means it's easier for people to get away. Which means it takes longer to kill them. Which gives authorities more time to get there. It can mean the difference between killing, say, 25 people and 5 people. But your earlier question was why one gun is more dangerous than another. I answered it. How many rounds it can shoot and how quickly and how many different types of ammunition can be loaded into it. If one gun wasn't deadlier than another we'd have stuck with the very first one ever invented.Wasdie
I hate to break it to you, but my 1914 Short Magazine Lee Enfield from WWIcan be fired at comparable speeds as most semi-automatic rifles, and just as accurately but with a much larger round (bigger hole in target, more range). Most well used bolt-action rifles that have been properly maintained can go through their 5-10 round magazines pretty quickly and be reloaded pretty fast.
It's a major gray area that is impossible to accurately define. Each gun and each gunowner has different capabilities to make their weapons more or less useful depending on thousands of factors. If the shooter would have used his pistols he had on him during the Sandy Hook shooting, the casualties would probably not have changed much.
Also when you start classifying certain weapons as more deadly than others, you're getting into the mentality that a crazy person would only be able to kill X man people with this gun. Really X many is too many no matter what X is. Even if we all were only allowed single shot muskets, people would still die from them. What's the difference between 1 and 100 really? You could dump all of this time and effort trying to get "assault weapons" off of the streets and then take the number of deaths in mass shootings down from 10 people to 5 people, or you could put the same time and effort finding the root cause of these mass shootings and trying to fix the source so the number of people dead is 0.
When I see somebody arguing over how deadly a weapon is and how some should be banned over others because you perceive one as being more deadly, I see misplaced priorities and is knee jerking to something they are afraid of. You still need somebody to pull the trigger. Focus on preventing them from pulling the trigger, or stabbing with the knife, or beating somebody to death, or anyway else that you commit murder should be priority #1. That may include a level of gun control like preventing criminals from owning guns by doing background checks. Closing loopholes for people to avoid background checks wherever possible. Increasing penalties for gun safety negligence.
That's my opinion on it. You cannot just magically make guns go away anymore so you need to treat the root cause of these things.
Answering your comments/questions in order: 1. I freely admit that I'm not a gun expert, but logically speaking if newer guns weren't deadlier than older ones, they wouldn't have been invented and wouldn't be used. It would take a more knowledgeable person than I am on the subject to speak authoritatively on HOW MUCH more deadly one gun is over another. It's a good thing that the U.S. has no shortage of experts who can help us figure that out once we get past the basic point of wanting certain weapons to not be widely available to everyone. 2. The difference between 1 person and 100 person is 99 people. Or 99 fathers, sons, mothers, daughters, sisters, brothers, whatever. It's the difference between one family mourning a lost loved one and 100 people. 100 people dying at the hands of a madman is, mathematically, 100 times worse than a single person. 3. I don't view this as an either/or thing. That's why I acknowledge Musicalmac's point earlier that guns don't pick themselves up and fire themselves. Keeping certain guns out of circulation does limit the amount of damage loons can do before they are stopped, and, oddly, I weighed the importance of people who like guns having their favorite shiniest examples of them vs. the good of society and decided that this is one toy that folks can go without if it saves a bunch of lives. I'm more than happy to attack the issue from both directions. Restrictions on which guns are legal and more extensive background checks combined in one direction, greater investment into sociological research and mental health/rehabilitation programs. As I said in an earlier comment, I'm not unreasonable on this. People like you want to have access to certain weapons? I don't mind. I just figure that you can establish different levels of burden of proof before you get that access. Start small. Eliminate the gun show loophole. Work upwards to something like a Driver's License. I had to go through three months of training that was monitored by a local government and pass a test before I got access to a car on my own. Is it unreasonable to require a sliding scale of something similar to get access to a semi-auto rifle?But I digress, we could go back and forth on this one all dya all day.Really it boils down to trying to ban the gun that causes less than 5% of all gun crime in this nation. since 99.9% of assault weapon owners are law abiding citizens, why should we punish them?WasdieIt actually boils down to trying to ban all sorts of other guns as well. Guns are tools. No one in their right mind buys a chainsaw unless they actually need it for something. Similarly, anyone who genuinely needs an assault rifle is welcome to keep them, as long as he/she takes it out only when it is genuinely needed. People who own one just because they want one, could easily find less deadly toys to play with.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]But I digress, we could go back and forth on this one all dya all day.Really it boils down to trying to ban the gun that causes less than 5% of all gun crime in this nation. since 99.9% of assault weapon owners are law abiding citizens, why should we punish them?ChiliDragonIt actually boils down to trying to ban all sorts of other guns as well. Guns are tools. No one in their right mind buys a chainsaw unless they actually need it for something. Similarly, anyone who genuinely needs an assault rifle is welcome to keep them, as long as he/she takes it out only when it is genuinely needed. People who own one just because they want one, could easily find less deadly toys to play with.
Now you have also turned it into what a person needs vs. wants. Nobody need a lot of things we have.
I'll ask you this, do you think we should throw out the 2nd Amendment because it has no meaning today?
Complete waste of time.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment