Gun Bans

[JonathanAtopia]

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploa ... 805173.jpg

Sen Diane Feinstein has made a list of guns to ban. This list has unconstitutional bans. You get my opinion.

[Greed and Death]

Not certain on the Constitutionality of those bans, I am certain she knows nothing about fire arms.

[Frisivisia]

People attempt to ban unnecessary guns based on arbitrary definitions of "assault", ignore the fact that we should regulate all guns more heavily, instead of banning certain ones.

[Blazedtown]

The Assault Weapons Ban is just a stepping stone to full ban on all semi-automatic weapons. Assault weapons are defined by purely cosmetic features, not their technical capacities.

[Greed and Death]

The Assault Weapons Ban is just a stepping stone to full ban on all semi-automatic weapons. Assault weapons are defined by purely cosmetic features, not their technical capacities.

That is what this site believes.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Shotguns.

Because they're assault rifles, why not.

[Blazedtown]

The Assault Weapons Ban is just a stepping stone to full ban on all semi-automatic weapons. Assault weapons are defined by purely cosmetic features, not their technical capacities.

That is what this site believes.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Which is why I have it in my sig.

[North Stradia]

Gun control is unconstitutional and wrong.

[Ragnarsdomr]

Banning 'American Spirit'?

I think we see the problem here, gentlemen. She's trying to keep Hippostania out of your country.

[Greed and Death]

That is what this site believes.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Which is why I have it in my sig.

Did not notice that.

[Idaho Conservatives]

The Assault Weapons Ban is just a stepping stone to full ban on all semi-automatic weapons. Assault weapons are defined by purely cosmetic features, not their technical capacities.

Yup. It's nothing but an attempt to use the public's ignorance of "Evil Black Rifles" get the camel's nose under the tent.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Geez, if she wants to ban Saigas, why not just ban every other non-pump-action shotgun out there?

Parts of this list are lulzy.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

.22 LR Carbine.

Definitely an assault weapon.

[Vareiln]

Last I checked, the M82 isn't an AR-15 pattern assault rifle. Neither is the HK 91. Nor the various CETMEs. Or the FAL. Or the AUG. Or the PS90. And so on and so forth.
Really, this whole list is "let's ban all those scary looking military rifles we see in video games and movies!"

[Blazedtown]

Last I checked, the M82 isn't an AR-15 pattern assault rifle. Neither is the HK 91. Nor the various CETMEs. Or the FAL. Or the AUG. Or the PS90. And so on and so forth.
Really, this whole list is "let's ban all those scary looking military rifles we see in video games and movies!"

Yep. Its totally arbitrary and not based in reality.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Last I checked, the M82 isn't an AR-15 pattern assault rifle. Neither is the HK 91. Nor the various CETMEs. Or the FAL. Or the AUG. Or the PS90. And so on and so forth.
Really, this whole list is "let's ban all those scary looking military rifles we see in video games and movies!"

Yep. Its totally arbitrary and not based in reality.

But it has the pistol grip and everything!

[Vareiln]

Yep. Its totally arbitrary and not based in reality.

But it has the pistol grip and everything!

Clearly, it's a baby-skull seeking full-auto dragon's breath saturday night special street sweeping assault weapon machinepistol machine gun assault rifle.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

But it has the pistol grip and everything!

Clearly, it's a baby-skull seeking full-auto dragon's breath saturday night special street sweeping assault weapon machinepistol machine gun assault rifle.

I know someone has to be off their gourd to do a school shooting, but if they tried to do one with an M107... they're just about beyond hope.

[Blazedtown]

Yep. Its totally arbitrary and not based in reality.

But it has the pistol grip and everything!

I'm surprised the BFG-9000 isn't on the list.

[I Want to Smash Them All]

with guitar!

Without commenting on the wisdom, desirability, or constitutionality of Senator Feinstein's proposal, here is some (hopefully) useful context:

• The U.S. Supreme Courts decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) in which the Court:
  
  
  1. Held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and use firearms; but
     
     
  2. Noted this right is not unlimited is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose;" and
     
     
  3. Observed that various restrictions, bans, regulations, etc., concerning the possession, purchase, or sale of firearms would still be constitutional, including (but not limited to):
     
     • (at least some) prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons,
       
     • prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,
       
     • laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,
       
     • laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
       
     • bans of various sorts of weapons (but NOT a blanket ban on handguns as in D.C.)
• A press release from Senator Feinstein's office describing the bill she is proposing (and some reason why).
  
  
• A more specific summary from Senator Feinstein of the bill she will introduce to Congress (which includes details about what weapons would be banned or restricted with both specific firearms banned by name and more general definitions or banned firearms).
  
  
• Of less relevance (IMO), a list of endorsements for Senator Feinstein's proposal

[Wisconsin9]

The Constitution says that you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones. Which means that it falls to the government—whether that be state or federal—to determine which arms you do have the right to bear. A single-shot pistol is still technically a firearm, after all.

[The Zeonic States]

Least the ignorant **** Left my friggin glocks alone.

[Blazedtown]

The Constitution says that you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones. Which means that it falls to the government—whether that be state or federal—to determine which arms you do have the right to bear. A single-shot pistol is still technically a firearm, after all.

Should it be a totally arbitrary decision based on which ones are scary looking? Or do think it should based on reasonable restrictions like very tightly restricting access to fully automatic weapons?

[Maklohi Vai]

You get my opinion.

Ok, when? Is it that they are unconstitutional? If so, then explain why. That's how NSG works: present a claim, back it with evidence and an argument.

[Wisconsin9]

The Constitution says that you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones. Which means that it falls to the government—whether that be state or federal—to determine which arms you do have the right to bear. A single-shot pistol is still technically a firearm, after all.

Should it be a totally arbitrary decision based on which ones are scary looking? Or do think it should based on reasonable restrictions like very tightly restricting access to fully automatic weapons?

Actually, I think it should be reasonable. Unfortunately, we live in a system where we allow politicians to make decisions for us.