Should Assault Weapons be banned?

[Alekera]

Or in the words of Joe Biden "Buy a shotgun... buy a shotgun!"

2 BLASTS!!!!!

12 GAUGE IS THE ANSWER!!!!!!!

Through the door, i might add....

[Republica Newland]

you gun control folks

I suppose you just conveniently ignored the part where I didn't take sides, right?

Yes it does. With you gun control folks repeatedly failing to understand that how much muscle the US military has is completely irrelevant
The more drastic the measures,the more military will defect. Simple as that. Proven fact.

So you don't need rifles because the theoretical tyrannical government can't do anything. Cool. Thanks for proving my point.

The Constitution has been repeatedly shat upon. Apparently the Government can do stupid things after all.

[Cosara]

Or in the words of Joe Biden "Buy a shotgun... buy a shotgun!"

2 BLASTS!!!!!

12 GAUGE IS THE ANSWER!!!!!!!

Then you better hope it's only one attacker and it only takes 2 shots to take him down. If not, then God help you, because Joe Biden certainly won't.

[Divair]

The Constitution has been repeatedly shat upon. Apparently the Government can do stupid things after all.

Listen, mate. I'm going to explain it real slow to you and all the lads who think it's a good idea to use this argument to fight against gun control. You have two situations:


A. The tyrannical government manages to convince the military it is doing the right thing. Your rifles won't even dent a fucking APC, let alone stop the entire US military.
B. The tyrannical government doesn't manage to convince the military it is doing the right thing. The military quickly overthrows the tyrannical government. You don't need rifles.


Got it?

[NFA Rulz]

This is the Exact Text of Senator Feinstein's submitted bill, S.150. In essence she is asking for the banning of nearly every single kind of Title I semi-automatic weapon currently available. Machine guns are NOT on the list because Lawful Production for them stopped in 1986.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4


On Page 5 she Bans Remington R–15 rifles, but on Page 23 she exempts their Model 74 which is more powerful.
On Page 6 she Bans the Feather Industries AT–9. Feather industries has been out of business for about 10 years.
On some of the Banned firearms, there are more replies in this thread than have ever been imported into The Country.

The Entire Bill Is a Sick and Demented Delusion.

[Republica Newland]

2 BLASTS!!!!!

12 GAUGE IS THE ANSWER!!!!!!!

Then you better hope it's only one attacker and it only takes 2 shots to take him down. If not, then God help you, because Joe Biden certainly won't.

2x 12 gauge at home invasion ranges is probably enough to take down a bull. That's not the funny thing,the funny thing is him stating how a 12 gauge is perfectly suited for women.

[Alekera]

The Constitution has been repeatedly shat upon. Apparently the Government can do stupid things after all.

Listen, mate. I'm going to explain it real slow to you and all the lads who think it's a good idea to use this argument to fight against gun control. You have two situations:


A. The tyrannical government manages to convince the military it is doing the right thing. Your rifles won't even dent a fucking APC, let alone stop the entire US military.
B. The tyrannical government doesn't manage to convince the military it is doing the right thing. The military quickly overthrows the tyrannical government. You don't need rifles.


Got it?

So you'd be happier being a victim?

[Episarta]

Let's just ban humans already! Why must there always be overblown reactionary responses to every little thing!?

[Divair]

So you'd be happier being a victim?

If we're discussing the first scenario.. if I try to fight, I'm going to die for sure. If I don't fight, I've got a tiny chance of surviving.


Guess which one I'm going to take.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

2013 Year of the gun control thread.

But how do we turn this into a gender issue?

that also covers abortion, the never ending conflict between religion and atheism and how utterly horrid the EU is.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Personally, I am against gun control, but I want to know what NS thinks. Here's my argument against it:

Ban Assault Rifles.

1) The United States Department of Justice said that the Clinton Gun Ban did not reduce gun violence.

It also didn't completely ban all assault weapons now did it. By the way how many people die from machine guns. . . that's right 0 because machine guns are banned.

2) Rifles in general only account for 1% of gun murders.

Assualt rifles account for about 100% of deaths in mass shootings. In total I would bet close to 70% of gun deaths are related to drugs and money. Although I don't think the movie theater shooting or the Newtown shooting was because of drugs or money.

3) We need guns so that we can defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

Okay you use an AR-15 and the government will use an M1-A1 tank. You'll be fucking screwed.

Why? They haven't been used in very many crimes (1-2 since the inception of the National Firearms Act of 1934), so banning them won't do anything to reduce crime and/or firearms deaths.

Full auto/select fire weapons aren't banned federally, they're restricted. To get a transferable (pre May 19, 1986) full auto/select fire weapon requires the acquisition of an ATF tax stamp (involving paperwork, fingerprinting, background check, and $200).

I'm going to need a source on that 100% figure.

My AR15 is only going to be used against a tyrannical government if paper targets take the government over.

[Gun Manufacturers]

The term seems to be extremely loose and used selectively by both sides for their own benefit.

Just ban guns full stop.

That would be extremely difficult in the US, because 44 states have the right to bear arms in their state constitutions, and the US Constitution also protects that right. Since you would need at least 38 states to ratify a repeal of the Second Amendment, it isn't likely to happen.

[Republica Newland]

The Constitution has been repeatedly shat upon. Apparently the Government can do stupid things after all.

Listen, mate. I'm going to explain it real slow to you and all the lads who think it's a good idea to use this argument to fight against gun control. You have two situations:


A. The tyrannical government manages to convince the military it is doing the right thing. Your rifles won't even dent a fucking APC, let alone stop the entire US military.
B. The tyrannical government doesn't manage to convince the military it is doing the right thing. The military quickly overthrows the tyrannical government. You don't need rifles.


Got it?

With the obvious and mandatory final conclusion that the so called "assault rifles" should be illegal. Riiight

The Arabs had little to no firearms when it all started. Now they have not only succeeded in "putting a dent in a fucking APC",they have destroyed fucking tanks,helicopters,planes,what have you.

Not to mention how the US military got their ass royally kicked in numerous occasions in 'Nam and Afghanistan/Iraq when fighting relatively poorly armed and trained enemies. Not to mention they were in significantly smaller numbers than the armed population of the United States.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Because I was bottom paged.

Sometimes I'd want to pit those who use "defense against tyranny" reasoning, against M2A2 armed only with a rifle.

Well, since an M2A2 isn't a vehicle capable of operating itself, I think it would end up being a really boring fight.

[Divair]

With the obvious and mandatory final conclusion that the so called "assault rifles" should be illegal. Riiight

Nice strawman.

The Arabs had little to no firearms when it all started. Now they have not only succeeded in "putting a dent in a fucking APC",they have destroyed fucking tanks,helicopters,planes,what have you.

The Libyan rebels had the support of the West. And a huge group of defectors. And didn't you JUST say it wasn't comparable? Make up your fucking mind.

Not to mention how the US military got their ass royally kicked in numerous occasions in 'Nam and Afghanistan/Iraq when fighting relatively poorly armed and trained enemies. Not to mention they were in significantly smaller numbers than the armed population of the United States.

Afghan and Iraq weren't losses. Nam was, but that failed because they were fighting on unfamiliar terrain against an enemy supplied by China and the USSR.

But hey, let's compare completely different scenarios, because fuck reality, amirite?

[Republica Newland]

Gotta love how we're debating something that is entirely made up. You go America!!!

[Divair]

Gotta love how we're debating something that is entirely made up. You go America!!!

OP brought it up. His fault.

[Lewina]

Personally, I am against gun control, but I want to know what NS thinks. Here's my argument against it:

1) The United States Department of Justice said that the Clinton Gun Ban did not reduce gun violence

2) Rifles in general only account for 1% of gun murders.

3) We need guns so that we can defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

No they should'nt be banned. They are semi-automatic sporting rifles intended for civilians and not the military. Banning cosmetic features does not make the weapon less dangerous and that is a well known fact.

[Alekera]

So you'd be happier being a victim?

If we're discussing the first scenario.. if I try to fight, I'm going to die for sure. If I don't fight, I've got a tiny chance of surviving.


Guess which one I'm going to take.

Because anytime there was a resistance, everyone in the resistance was killed.... everyone.

I suppose a better question is: Would you rather fight to keep the same freedoms you want with a chance of death, or would you rather show no resistance, be oppressed and have a chance of dying?

[Republica Newland]

With the obvious and mandatory final conclusion that the so called "assault rifles" should be illegal. Riiight

Nice strawman.

The Arabs had little to no firearms when it all started. Now they have not only succeeded in "putting a dent in a fucking APC",they have destroyed fucking tanks,helicopters,planes,what have you.

The Libyan rebels had the support of the West. And a huge group of defectors. And didn't you JUST say it wasn't comparable? Make up your fucking mind.

Not to mention how the US military got their ass royally kicked in numerous occasions in 'Nam and Afghanistan/Iraq when fighting relatively poorly armed and trained enemies. Not to mention they were in significantly smaller numbers than the armed population of the United States.

Afghan and Iraq weren't losses. Nam was, but that failed because they were fighting on unfamiliar terrain against an enemy supplied by China and the USSR.

But hey, let's compare completely different scenarios, because fuck reality, amirite?

I'd say a Libyan TANK (whatever the fuck they are using,I'm presuming slightly (or more) outdated Soviet weaponry) is comparable to an American "fucking APC".

You've still failed to bring up a method of determining who is and who isn't rebelling,because target acquisition is fucking easy when dealing with your own fucking country full of civilians,amirite?

L.E.: Unless the US military is capable of indiscriminately killing its' own civilians,obviously

[Divair]

Because anytime there was a resistance, everyone in the resistance was killed.... everyone.

I suppose a better question is: Would you rather fight to keep the same freedoms you want with a chance of death, or would you rather show no resistance, be oppressed and have a chance of dying?

A resistance in the US without a majority of the military defecting is impossible. It is guaranteed death. To imply anything other than that is just sheer ignorance.

[Phocidaea]

It depends. What is an "assault weapon"?

Automatic weapons? Yes.
Legitimately "military-grade" weapons? Probably.
Standard civilian-grade rifles that happen to resemble military arms? No.

[Divair]

I'd say a Libyan TANK (whatever the fuck they are using,I'm presuming slightly (or more) outdated Soviet weaponry) is comparable to an American "fucking APC".

So.. where do you plan on getting a few dozen planes to take out the USAF and then the tanks on the ground?

You've still failed to bring up a method of determining who is and who isn't rebelling,because target acquisition is fucking easy when dealing with your own fucking country full of civilians,amirite?

Tyrannical government, remember? Why would they care?

[Alekera]

Because anytime there was a resistance, everyone in the resistance was killed.... everyone.

I suppose a better question is: Would you rather fight to keep the same freedoms you want with a chance of death, or would you rather show no resistance, be oppressed and have a chance of dying?

A resistance in the US without a majority of the military defecting is impossible. It is guaranteed death. To imply anything other than that is just sheer ignorance.

So which is it? Die fighting or die being oppressed?

[Mexicanada]

Banning assault wepons won't stop gun violence criminals can just buy them illegaly anyway the only thing it would do is make the law abiding citizens more vunarable to them.

Why would I bother saying something when someone's already said it. Thatnk you for bringing some sense to the argument.