NZ to ban military style weapons

  • 106 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for THUMPTABLE
#1 Edited by THUMPTABLE (2091 posts) -

https://://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47648549

I could imagine if this happened in the US, the gun nuts would go off their trees.
Those of you in the US, can you see something like this ever happening?

Avatar image for Jag85
#2 Edited by Jag85 (13535 posts) -

Many gun owners and even gun shop owners are voluntarily returning their semi-auto firearms even before this law gets passed. NZ has proven itself to be a more civilised society than the US, which the gun lobby has in its pockets.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#3 Posted by MirkoS77 (14242 posts) -

No, it’d never happen in the U.S. Guns are basically interwoven into the fabric of our national identity.

Avatar image for sonicare
#4 Posted by sonicare (56773 posts) -

If you were to ban assault weapons in the US, I would advise a staged ban. Trying to take them away from people would likely not end well, but you could make them illegal to purchase moving forward.

Avatar image for mandzilla
#5 Posted by Mandzilla (4110 posts) -

Good for New Zealand, similar to how the UK pursued gun control after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#6 Posted by mrbojangles25 (44045 posts) -

I've said it before and I will say it again: guns in America are here to stay.

What we can change, however, are the requirements to owning a gun, who is allowed to own them, and in general just be smarter about gun laws. The problem is both sides are led by extremists; one side wants no guns and can't fathom why people want them, and the other side wants all guns and can't stomach the idea of being without them. Need to compromise.

@MirkoS77 said:

No, it’d never happen in the U.S. Guns are basically interwoven into the fabric of our national identity.

Yeah, I can think of 40 people at least that go deer hunting regularly. Not to mention people that are into just shooting in general. This is in California, too, the crazy gun law capital of the US.

Avatar image for rmpumper
#7 Posted by rmpumper (654 posts) -

@sonicare: Don't even have to take away the guns, just stop selling bullets for them, eventually the hillbillies will run out of their stocks and that will be the end of it.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#8 Edited by br0kenrabbit (16077 posts) -

@rmpumper said:

@sonicare: Don't even have to take away the guns, just stop selling bullets for them, eventually the hillbillies will run out of their stocks and that will be the end of it.

No. Hillbillies often make their own ammo, anyway. Presses and dies can be easily had for cheap. Here's some examples: https://www.dillonprecision.com/

Oh, and don't even think about banning the necessary ingredients. Even if they did ban the ingredients, they aren't difficult to procure naturally. The most annoying part would be pissing on hay and then gathering the phosphorous crystals out of it.

Avatar image for Jag85
#9 Posted by Jag85 (13535 posts) -

@mrbojangles25: NZ's solution is to ban semi-auto guns. Why can't that be a solution for the US? Why would anyone need semi-auto guns?

Avatar image for Serraph105
#10 Posted by Serraph105 (33853 posts) -

I guess they realized that thoughts and prayers weren't even keeping people who are currently sitting in the pews safe.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#11 Edited by comp_atkins (35747 posts) -
@MirkoS77 said:

No, it’d never happen in the U.S. Guns are basically interwoven into the fabric of our national identity.

people say this.. yet i probably know maybe 2 people in my entire life who actually own a gun

it REALLY depends on where you live

Avatar image for ad1x2
#12 Edited by ad1x2 (7569 posts) -

If New Zealand wants to ban certain types of guns then by all means, that is their option. They don't fall under the US Constitution. An outright ban won't work here, but more safety procedures to include training and more detailed background checks wouldn't hurt.

Also, while I see why the kneejerk reaction to a mass shooting is to ban guns outright, you would assume that people that think the sitting president is Super Hitler and cops are a bunch of trigger-happy racist murderers would want to keep their best means of self-defense against them. Vietnam and Iraq have shown how effective a well-led insurgency could work if shit hit the fan, just in case people will say that the government would just send the military to take down the resistance (many of whom would probably defect before obeying orders to shoot civilians).

Avatar image for ad1x2
#13 Posted by ad1x2 (7569 posts) -

@comp_atkins said:
@MirkoS77 said:

No, it’d never happen in the U.S. Guns are basically interwoven into the fabric of our national identity.

people say this.. yet i probably know maybe 2 people in my entire life who actually own a gun

it REALLY depends on where you live

If you get out of the big cities you will find a lot of people that own guns. Even in the cities there are plenty of people that have them for protection; especially if you live in an area where the police aren't trusted or take a long time to arrive after being called.

Avatar image for SOedipus
#14 Posted by SOedipus (11513 posts) -

I'm surprised that they were legal in the first place.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#15 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166617 posts) -

@mrbojangles25 said:

I've said it before and I will say it again: guns in America are here to stay.

What we can change, however, are the requirements to owning a gun, who is allowed to own them, and in general just be smarter about gun laws. The problem is both sides are led by extremists; one side wants no guns and can't fathom why people want them, and the other side wants all guns and can't stomach the idea of being without them. Need to compromise.

@MirkoS77 said:

No, it’d never happen in the U.S. Guns are basically interwoven into the fabric of our national identity.

Yeah, I can think of 40 people at least that go deer hunting regularly. Not to mention people that are into just shooting in general. This is in California, too, the crazy gun law capital of the US.

You don't need military weapons to deer hunt.

Avatar image for nattydaddy604
#16 Posted by NattyDaddy604 (304 posts) -
@sonicare said:

If you were to ban assault weapons in the US, I would advise a staged ban. Trying to take them away from people would likely not end well, but you could make them illegal to purchase moving forward.

Assault weapons are already banned in the US

Avatar image for nattydaddy604
#17 Edited by NattyDaddy604 (304 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:
@rmpumper said:

@sonicare: Don't even have to take away the guns, just stop selling bullets for them, eventually the hillbillies will run out of their stocks and that will be the end of it.

No. Hillbillies often make their own ammo, anyway. Presses and dies can be easily had for cheap. Here's some examples: https://www.dillonprecision.com/

Oh, and don't even think about banning the necessary ingredients. Even if they did ban the ingredients, they aren't difficult to procure naturally. The most annoying part would be pissing on hay and then gathering the phosphorous crystals out of it.

So if banning the ingredients would have no effect on ammunition, what makes you think banning guns in general would?

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#18 Posted by br0kenrabbit (16077 posts) -

@nattydaddy604 said:

So if banning the ingredients would have no effect on ammunition, what makes you think banning guns in general would?

I never said it would. The above was my first post on this thread.

But since you implored: banning the wholesale of guns would keep them out of many, many hands. Most people aren't exceptionally bright just like most people aren't incredibly stupid. I doubt your average 'G' knows how to procure phosphate from their own piss, or how to rifle a brass pipe to make a barrel.

But Hillbillies do. Hillbillies are some hard living motherfuckers. I live in Appalachia, I actually know hillbillies. Dude, they make their own alcohol, cooking up some gunpowder and soldering a few tubes together isn't going to bother them. They'll think it's fun.

Avatar image for nattydaddy604
#19 Edited by NattyDaddy604 (304 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit: Banning guns would keep the hands out of the many many law abiding citizens, whereas the criminals will find illegal weapons or another method of killing.

There is no study that directly correlates a decrease in guns to a decrease in homicides.

Sorry, but taking away guns from everyone would only harm the law abiding citizens, not criminals. Why do you think these criminals target schools.places of worship and not politicians? Because they know politicians are heavily protected by law enforcement. I think its time to protect children in that manner, rather than take away peoples right to self protection

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#20 Posted by br0kenrabbit (16077 posts) -

@nattydaddy604 said:

@br0kenrabbit: Banning guns would keep the hands out of the many many law abiding citizens, whereas the criminals will find illegal weapons or another method of killing.

There is no study that directly correlates a decrease in guns to a decrease in homicides.

Sorry, but taking away guns from everyone would only harm the law abiding citizens, not criminals. Why do you think these criminals target schools.places of worship and not politicians? Because they know politicians are heavily protected by law enforcement. I think its time to protect children in that manner, rather than take away peoples right to self protection

I don't disagree with any of that, and I have said nothing in contrary to it. I was talking specifically about the 'Hillbillies' comment. Yeah I know hillbillies, and banning guns aren't going to stop them from making guns, and making ammunition.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#21 Posted by mrbojangles25 (44045 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

@mrbojangles25: NZ's solution is to ban semi-auto guns. Why can't that be a solution for the US? Why would anyone need semi-auto guns?

Semi-auto is a massive category to ban. That's not literally all guns, but it might as well be.

Even I think that might be a little excessive, and half the time I think a bolt-action rifle is all anyone should have.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
#22 Posted by Solaryellow (4953 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

Many gun owners and even gun shop owners are voluntarily returning their semi-auto firearms even before this law gets passed. NZ has proven itself to be a more civilised society than the US, which the gun lobby has in its pockets.

The threat of jail time has nothing to do with "voluntarily" surrendering their arms, right?

Avatar image for nattydaddy604
#23 Posted by NattyDaddy604 (304 posts) -
@mrbojangles25 said:
@Jag85 said:

@mrbojangles25: NZ's solution is to ban semi-auto guns. Why can't that be a solution for the US? Why would anyone need semi-auto guns?

Semi-auto is a massive category to ban. That's not literally all guns, but it might as well be.

Even I think that might be a little excessive, and half the time I think a bolt-action rifle is all anyone should have.

well the 2nd amendment was created to protect against tyrannical governments. Which the first thing gov'ts do when they want to tyrannize there population is remove their guns.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#24 Edited by LJS9502_basic (166617 posts) -

@nattydaddy604 said:
@mrbojangles25 said:
@Jag85 said:

@mrbojangles25: NZ's solution is to ban semi-auto guns. Why can't that be a solution for the US? Why would anyone need semi-auto guns?

Semi-auto is a massive category to ban. That's not literally all guns, but it might as well be.

Even I think that might be a little excessive, and half the time I think a bolt-action rifle is all anyone should have.

well the 2nd amendment was created to protect against tyrannical governments. Which the first thing gov'ts do when they want to tyrannize there population is remove their guns.

No the 2nd amendment was to establish a well regulated militia to defend the country.

Avatar image for nattydaddy604
#25 Posted by NattyDaddy604 (304 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic: To defend the people from what? Go look up historical FACTS about what the founding fathers said in regards to the amendment.

NattyDaddy +1, LJ -2

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#26 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166617 posts) -

@nattydaddy604 said:

@LJS9502_basic: To defend the people from what? Go look up historical FACTS about what the founding fathers said in regards to the amendment.

NattyDaddy +1, LJ -2

WELL REGULATED MILITIA....it's right there for all to see.

Avatar image for nattydaddy604
#27 Posted by NattyDaddy604 (304 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic:

@LJS9502_basic said:
@nattydaddy604 said:

@LJS9502_basic: To defend the people from what? Go look up historical FACTS about what the founding fathers said in regards to the amendment.

NattyDaddy +1, LJ -2

WELL REGULATED MILITIA....it's right there for all to see.

You're right, but you continue to ignore my question. What did the founding fathers say in regards to the 2nd amendment when it was drafted? FOR WHAT PURPOSE?????

LJ -3

Avatar image for nattydaddy604
#28 Posted by NattyDaddy604 (304 posts) -
@Solaryellow said:
@Jag85 said:

Many gun owners and even gun shop owners are voluntarily returning their semi-auto firearms even before this law gets passed. NZ has proven itself to be a more civilised society than the US, which the gun lobby has in its pockets.

The threat of jail time has nothing to do with "voluntarily" surrendering their arms, right?

Ouch... I guess that fact flew right passed his head :P

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#29 Posted by mrbojangles25 (44045 posts) -

Does anyone else find it ironic that we cite a government document created by politicians to defend our right to protect us from the government.

@nattydaddy604 said:

@LJS9502_basic: ...To defend the people from what? Go look up historical FACTS about what the founding fathers said in regards to the amendment....

The point is there is nothing "well-regulated" about the firearm laws in the US, so it's sort of a moot point right now whether or not we should or should not have guns at all.

The point is that we need better regulation, as the Second Amendment says. It does not say "Have stupid gun laws" or "Have all the guns you want".

Concerning the founding fathers and their intentions, you could argue context or "different times". At that time most (all?) firearms were black powder muskets that shot one or two rounds a minute if you had skill. The document was written at a period where there were threats from European invaders/occupiers, American Indians as well, and bears and lions and cougars and such, so towns and various areas actually needed an armed militia.

Honestly if someone today wanted to join a state or county militia that helped their community, and part of the deal was they got to have a gun of their choice, I'd be fine with that. Bring back state and federal militias, allow people to serve locally. They'd have to serve their community, and when they needed to train they could shoot their gun (otherwise it would remain at the armory), and so on. If the militia was actually regulated, in addition to their firearms, I could give two shits if someone owns a semi-auto rifle that can shoot a mile or a machine gun.

What I can't support is these people with questionable mental health or intelligence that have gun safes and 50 guns. Nothing well-regulated about that.

Unfortunately no one, on either side, is really willing to meet half way and make a deal. Gun owners want all the guns, and gun ummmm...abolitionists?... want no guns.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#30 Posted by Sevenizz (3911 posts) -

@mandzilla: Yet the UK has had a massive spike in knife and acid attacks.

Some people are just violent.

Avatar image for nattydaddy604
#31 Posted by NattyDaddy604 (304 posts) -

@mrbojangles25 said:

Does anyone else find it ironic that we cite a government document created by politicians to defend our right to protect us from the government.

@nattydaddy604 said:

@LJS9502_basic: ...To defend the people from what? Go look up historical FACTS about what the founding fathers said in regards to the amendment....

The point is there is nothing "well-regulated" about the firearm laws in the US, so it's sort of a moot point right now whether or not we should or should not have guns at all.

The point is that we need better regulation, as the Second Amendment says. It does not say "Have stupid gun laws" or "Have all the guns you want".

Concerning the founding fathers and their intentions, you could argue context or "different times". At that time most (all?) firearms were black powder muskets that shot one or two rounds a minute if you had skill. The document was written at a period where there were threats from European invaders/occupiers, American Indians as well, and bears and lions and cougars and such, so towns and various areas actually needed an armed militia.

Honestly if someone today wanted to join a state or county militia that helped their community, and part of the deal was they got to have a gun of their choice, I'd be fine with that. Bring back state and federal militias, allow people to serve locally. They'd have to serve their community, and when they needed to train they could shoot their gun (otherwise it would remain at the armory), and so on. If the militia was actually regulated, in addition to their firearms, I could give two shits if someone owns a semi-auto rifle that can shoot a mile or a machine gun.

What I can't support is these people with questionable mental health or intelligence that have gun safes and 50 guns. Nothing well-regulated about that.

Unfortunately no one, on either side, is really willing to meet half way and make a deal. Gun owners want all the guns, and gun ummmm...abolitionists?... want no guns.

Ironic for sure. But they made the constitution with a citizen mindset, not authoritative, so I guess thats why. But I definitely agree.

Well it seems to me the "well-regulated militia" is a regulation of the people, not the weapons. By making sure the militia has a sound understanding of guns through training and practice, as well as being in the right state of mind is the best way to regulate it.

I understand the argument about looking at weapons in a historical context and they were obviously nowhere near the the quality of todays firearm, but that also contradicts it too..

The militia had the ability to fight off threats because the weapons they had were up to date (at that time). Were they the top notch quality as those who were attacking them? probably not, but damn near close.

You can't expect any human being to be capable of protecting themselves with a bolt action sniper rifle... I'd rather take a knife if thats the case.

Regulating firearms only make it more difficult for the law abiding citizens/militia to protect themselves. Criminals won't be following the laws anyways

Avatar image for mandzilla
#32 Edited by Mandzilla (4110 posts) -

@Sevenizz: Depends on which part of the UK, knife crime is way down in Scotland due to effective policies. It's really more of a problem in England and Wales at the moment.

Some people are violent yes, but you can tackle crime by taking the right approach to it.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#33 Posted by joebones5000 (2367 posts) -

Does no one realize that only little more than a decade ago we had an assault weapons ban?

Avatar image for sonicare
#34 Edited by sonicare (56773 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:

Does no one realize that only little more than a decade ago we had an assault weapons ban?

and we had zero gun deaths.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#35 Posted by foxhound_fox (97973 posts) -

But the US doesn't have a gun violence problem, it has a children dying at school problem.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
#36 Posted by vl4d_l3nin (1885 posts) -

I thought it was Pewdiepie's fault.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#37 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (45185 posts) -

Goes to show terrorism is still extremely effective at bringing entire countries to its knees; hence the knee jerk reaction.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#38 Posted by joebones5000 (2367 posts) -

@sonicare said:
@joebones5000 said:

Does no one realize that only little more than a decade ago we had an assault weapons ban?

and we had zero gun deaths.

I don't know what this means, but the assault weapons ban worked. We saw a decline in crimes used with assault weapons like the AR15.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#39 Posted by joebones5000 (2367 posts) -

@nattydaddy604 said:
@sonicare said:

If you were to ban assault weapons in the US, I would advise a staged ban. Trying to take them away from people would likely not end well, but you could make them illegal to purchase moving forward.

Assault weapons are already banned in the US

Nope. The AR15 is not banned.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#40 Posted by joebones5000 (2367 posts) -
@nattydaddy604 said:

@br0kenrabbit: Banning guns would keep the hands out of the many many law abiding citizens, whereas the criminals will find illegal weapons or another method of killing.

There is no study that directly correlates a decrease in guns to a decrease in homicides.

Sorry, but taking away guns from everyone would only harm the law abiding citizens, not criminals. Why do you think these criminals target schools.places of worship and not politicians? Because they know politicians are heavily protected by law enforcement. I think its time to protect children in that manner, rather than take away peoples right to self protection

How have you determined this?

There are plenty of studies that show that gun laws and fewer guns decrease homicide rates and other crimes.

You're making nonsensical John Lott arguments that have been successfully debunked by real researchers.

Avatar image for headninjadog
#41 Posted by headninjadog (740 posts) -

It's amazing that the politicians that want to ban citizens from having having firearms bend over backwards and give away our tax dollars every year to the Military Industrial Complex. They take the moral high ground yet those anti gun fucks love solving problems with bullets overseas.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#42 Posted by Jacanuk (18608 posts) -
@THUMPTABLE said:

https://://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47648549

I could imagine if this happened in the US, the gun nuts would go off their trees.

Those of you in the US, can you see something like this ever happening?

Yes, if the right president sits in the office, we have already had one temporary ban made by Clinton

But New Zealand is doing the only right thing and I wish the US would have the balls to do the same.

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
#43 Posted by Gaming-Planet (19965 posts) -

Seems counter intuitive.

Terrorism won this time.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#44 Edited by ronvalencia (28078 posts) -

@THUMPTABLE said:

https://://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47648549

I could imagine if this happened in the US, the gun nuts would go off their trees.

Those of you in the US, can you see something like this ever happening?

Unlike Australia, NZ doesn't have a proper defence force with zero combat capable air force.

Australia spends around 2 percent of it's GDP on defence.

In Australia, a person can buy a gun with a valid excuse e.g. sports, employment, farming. Self defence is not a valid excuse.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44105129

Australians now own more guns in total than they did before the 1996 crackdown, according to figures from 2016 - the last time they were comprehensively studied.

That amounts to more than three million firearms, according to separate government statistics.

https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/04/28/australia-s-gun-numbers-climb.html

In the years that followed, gun-buying climbed steadily to new heights. By 2015, the arms trade had broken all previous records. Last financial year Australia imported 104,000 firearms.

The million guns destroyed after Port Arthur have been replaced with 1,026,000 new ones. And the surge only shows upward momentum.

Avatar image for Icarian
#45 Posted by Icarian (1869 posts) -

EU did that too, but the Finns and the Czechs were against it and managed to get some loopholes into it like national defence, which is important to Finland.

Avatar image for nattydaddy604
#46 Edited by NattyDaddy604 (304 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:
@nattydaddy604 said:
@sonicare said:

If you were to ban assault weapons in the US, I would advise a staged ban. Trying to take them away from people would likely not end well, but you could make them illegal to purchase moving forward.

Assault weapons are already banned in the US

Nope. The AR15 is not banned.

I cannot take someone serious about banning a constitutional right when they do not know the difference between an AR-15, and an assault rifle.

EDIT: I realiazed you mentioned Assault weapon, and not assault rifle, I apologize. You are correct. Assault weapons are not banned, but assault rifles are.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#47 Posted by ronvalencia (28078 posts) -

@Icarian said:

EU did that too, but the Finns and the Czechs were against it and managed to get some loopholes into it like national defence, which is important to Finland.

It's either invest in proper defence force or maintain a large militia defence force. Learn the lessons from easy push over Philippines.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#48 Edited by ronvalencia (28078 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@THUMPTABLE said:

https://://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47648549

I could imagine if this happened in the US, the gun nuts would go off their trees.

Those of you in the US, can you see something like this ever happening?

Yes, if the right president sits in the office, we have already had one temporary ban made by Clinton

But New Zealand is doing the only right thing and I wish the US would have the balls to do the same.

New Zealand's new proposed gun laws has exemptions for farmers. A foreigner from Australia has influenced NZ's national laws. LOL. Using the same NZ logic, perhaps jumbo-jets should be banned from flying to avoid another Sep 11.

In recent Australian state election in New South Wales (member state with largest population size in Aussie Federation), Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party are gaining seats. Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party advocates self defence with guns.

Avatar image for nattydaddy604
#49 Edited by NattyDaddy604 (304 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:
@nattydaddy604 said:

@br0kenrabbit: Banning guns would keep the hands out of the many many law abiding citizens, whereas the criminals will find illegal weapons or another method of killing.

There is no study that directly correlates a decrease in guns to a decrease in homicides.

Sorry, but taking away guns from everyone would only harm the law abiding citizens, not criminals. Why do you think these criminals target schools.places of worship and not politicians? Because they know politicians are heavily protected by law enforcement. I think its time to protect children in that manner, rather than take away peoples right to self protection

How have you determined this?

There are plenty of studies that show that gun laws and fewer guns decrease homicide rates and other crimes.

You're making nonsensical John Lott arguments that have been successfully debunked by real researchers.

Nice try, the studies you are speaking of are manipulating the numbers. I've examined them countless of times. The media talks about gun regulations when a mass shooting or murder occurs, so why do they always use statistics such as gun violence and gun death? It's because both those terms are so vague and cover such a broad range of issues, it makes guns look so much worse.

To figure out the issue, we need to compare apples to apples. Find me a study demonstrating a direct correlation that gun regulations results in a DECREASE of MURDER. We are interested in preventing murder in all forms right?

Australia is often cited. Australia banned guns after a mass shooting. Did gun murders go down? of course they did, it was harder to purchase guns. But calling for a ban to guns is in hopes of decreasing overall murder rates, which does not support it....

If banning guns would lead to a decrease in murder, we would see a direct correlation, but there isn't.

I'll say it again. Look at the common denominator in WHERE these mass shootings are occurring. Gun free zones..... Mosques, churches, schools. Gun regulations do not work.

Politicians want to remove the public's ability to protect themselves with guns, all while having trained professionals protecting them 24/7.... ironic isn't it?

Here is an interesting article to read that examines how guns are good for citizens.

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/here-are-8-stubborn-facts-gun-violence-america

Avatar image for joebones5000
#50 Posted by joebones5000 (2367 posts) -

@nattydaddy604 said:
@joebones5000 said:
@nattydaddy604 said:
@sonicare said:

If you were to ban assault weapons in the US, I would advise a staged ban. Trying to take them away from people would likely not end well, but you could make them illegal to purchase moving forward.

Assault weapons are already banned in the US

Nope. The AR15 is not banned.

I cannot take someone serious about banning a constitutional right when they do not know the difference between an AR-15, and an assault rifle.

EDIT: I realiazed you mentioned Assault weapon, and not assault rifle, I apologize. You are correct. Assault weapons are not banned, but assault rifles are.

Yup, and the AR15 is also an assault weapon.