Should Assault Weapons be banned?

[Ensiferum]

My source is the fact that I'm not insane

So...no source then. Got'cha.

Well seeing as you don't need them it can't do any bad.

Why do you insist on using statements of fact that you can't back up with a source?

Precisely! Thanks for clearing that up. My point is that, if you NEED one you are mentally unstable or insane but if you WANT one that's just normal (1). Let's face it, guns are cool, but there is a difference between thoughts and actions (2).

1) Right...because THAT standard certainly doesn't have any holes in it. Because people don't NEED very much. Food, water, shelter. Why do you need a car? Or a television? Clearly these should be banned as well because you don't NEED them you just WANT them. They're cool, but there is a difference between NEED and WANT.

2) ...Okay? Where did this come from? Left-field, is where this came from.

Yes, wants should be heavily discouraged if not outright banned. You do not need a car. You do not need a computer. They should be restricted. It only makes sense. It doesn't come from left field at all, it's just common sense. It's perfectly fine to like guns, but to need one is not okay. If you need one than you have a mental issue as you think you need it to protect yourself. A sane person doesn't need a gun, they can defend themselves with their bare hands if they need to but in most cases they know they'll be fine whereas gun nuts always think people are after them

[Zarkanians]

Point at a target. Pull the trigger with a bolt-action rifle or revolver. You make one bullet-hole; then you have to work the bolt or recock the gun. Point at it with a semi-automatic rifle, pull the trigger. In the same time, you can make five holes (1). Point at it with a fully automatic rifle and pull the trigger; depending on the weapon, you've made anywhere between five to twenty holes in the same time it takes to fire a bolt-action rifle and make it ready to fire again. And that's a conservative estimate. Point at the target with a knife, and you've made no holes, but I'm smart enough to realize that if anyone tried to ban guns outright in the states they'd have a rebellion on their hands anyway (which is pretty disturbing if you ask me). (2)

This shouldn't be hard for you to understand. I'm not saying that rifles aren't deadly, but they are CERTAINLY less deadly than fully-automatic weapons, and if we're going to get anywhere we need to start with banning the biggest threats. (3)

Arguments about how there are lots of guns already hold no water, because the only thing that will happen if we don't ban them is that there will be more guns on on the market than there were before (4). If we're going to start getting rid of them, we need to start now. (5)

Let's not forget that, in real life, you'd be so scared shitless by a criminal holding a gun that you'd be more likely to hit another civilian than you would be the bad guy (6). That's if you're trained in hitting moving targets, know exactly where the vital spots are on a human being, and are so precise that you'd be able to hit those spots.

And since we're giving definitions, here's one:

Assault:
Verb
Make a physical attack on.
Noun
A physical attack: "his imprisonment for an assault on the film director"; "sexual assaults". (7)

1) Overestimate is overestimate. Besides, if you are comparing it to a revolver you're going to have the SAME EXACT RATE OF FIRE (maybe slightly slower or faster depending on the cylinder mechanism I suppose).

2) Not really. People seem to have this odd connection to things which they need to stay alive. England doesn't really have the problem anymore because they hunted them all out, but for western states in the US bears, wolves, and other sundry varieties of predatory critters are very common and pose a substantial threat.

3) Okay. Semi-automatic rifles aren't the biggest threat. Please check your argument and post again, or dial up your wikipedia for more information. This is a recording application "know your shit please".

4) Oddly, even with more guns on the market (and more dangerous 'assault weapons' as well since 2004) the homocide rate has been steadily decreasing. Hmmm...

5) No thanks.

6) Self-defense uses of guns aren't appropriate when one is being held up by a person who already has a gun. Either your being disingenuous in an attempt to score a point, or you have no idea what you're talking about.

7) Pointless (adj.) - of or having little or no relation to the topic at hand. Being irrelevant to the discussion. Eg: The use of this definition is pointless, much as the term 'assault weapon' is.

Why, you ask? Because if you're REALLY hinging on such technical labeling in the English language then the you have failed.

Besides, in the context of 'assault weapon' 'assault' is being used as an adjective, not a verb.

Numbers. Why didn't I think of that?

1) Assuming you have to cock the hammer back every time, you may get a slightly higher rate of fire than a bolt-action rifle. Most people aren't Western action heroes capable of emptying six shots in five seconds. I probably should have been more clear; sorry about that. I'm grouping the revolvers which cock for you in with semi-automatic weapons.

2) Call animal control. And my grandfather lives out in the bush; he scares off bears with pellet guns. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to do the same.

3) Biggest threat=most dangerous and deadly. Semi-automatic weapons kill more people, but that has nothing to do with potency--semi-automatic weapons are cheaper, on average, than fully automatic weapons. Both should be banned, but let's start with the ones that are capable of killing entire crowds, 'kay?

4) And yet you still have more crime than countries like Canada with strict regulations on guns.

6) What? Why else would you need one? To shoot the guy trying to hit you? Just take some self-defence classes; it'll be cheaper in the long run since you won't have to buy any guns or weapons, only lessons.

7) You posted the definition of assault weapons as a rebuttal for my question as to the point of defending "*assault* weapons." I used the definition of assault to explain--the only thing they could be used for is assaulting something. If that's a wild animal, that's fine, but you shouldn't NEED a semi-automatic weapon with an extend clip to scare off a coyote. All you'd need for that is a few blanks and a bolt-action rifle for gods' sakes...

I'm heading to sleep now. I'll reply to any replies to this post in the morning.

[Pine Mountain]

There is no such thing as 'assault weapons'. The only meaningful distinction is between fully-automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and manual weapons. I support a ban on fully-automatic weapons only, so as to impede mass-shootings. I am strongly opposed to a ban on so-called 'assault weapons'.

The deliberately vague term 'assault weapons' is typically used by authoritarian cops (and the corrupt politicians that they have in their back pocket, such as Diane Feinstein) who sympathize with the police-authoritarian ideology of such countries as North Korea, Iran, and the Assad regime. Said police authoritarians don't want the people to possess guns that can pierce their ballistic vests, lest anyone be able to defend themselves from their dominance-asserting intimidating aggression. Therefore they use the vague term 'assault weapons' to refer to the weapons that are most effective at that. We really should not be tolerating these so-called 'Americans' who sympathize with the police-authoritarian ideals of our national enemies; we should deport them to authoritarian countries where they would fit in much better.

[Big Jim P]

There is no such thing as 'assault weapons'. The only meaningful distinction is between fully-automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and manual weapons. I support a ban on fully-automatic weapons only, so as to impede mass-shootings. I am strongly opposed to a ban on so-called 'assault weapons'.

The deliberately vague term 'assault weapons' is typically used by authoritarian cops (and the corrupt politicians that they have in their back pocket, such as Diane Feinstein) who sympathize with the police-authoritarian ideology of such countries as North Korea, Iran, and the Assad regime. Said police authoritarians don't want the people to possess guns that can pierce their ballistic vests, lest anyone be able to defend themselves from their dominance-asserting intimidating aggression. Therefore they use the vague term 'assault weapons' to refer to the weapons that are most effective at that. We really should not be tolerating these so-called 'Americans' who sympathize with the police-authoritarian ideals of our national enemies; we should deport them to authoritarian countries where they would fit in much better.

Fully automatic weapons are not used in mass shootings.

[Zarkanians]

There is no such thing as 'assault weapons'. The only meaningful distinction is between fully-automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and manual weapons. I support a ban on fully-automatic weapons only, so as to impede mass-shootings. I am strongly opposed to a ban on so-called 'assault weapons'.

The deliberately vague term 'assault weapons' is typically used by authoritarian cops (and the corrupt politicians that they have in their back pocket, such as Diane Feinstein) who sympathize with the police-authoritarian ideology of such countries as North Korea, Iran, and the Assad regime. Said police authoritarians don't want the people to possess guns that can pierce their ballistic vests, lest anyone be able to defend themselves from their dominance-asserting intimidating aggression. Therefore they use the vague term 'assault weapons' to refer to the weapons that are most effective at that. We really should not be tolerating these so-called 'Americans' who sympathize with the police-authoritarian ideals of our national enemies; we should deport them to authoritarian countries where they would fit in much better.

This would have made me laugh if fewer people seriously believed it.

Night everyone.

[Nua Corda]

Uhhhh no. Look at alstrilia after banning semi-automatics. Their crime rate went through the rough. But if you look at Switzerland, they require every person/citizen to have a wepon and they have one lowest crime rates. So no to banning assault riffles.

Actually, Switzerland doesn't have one of the lowest crime rates. But a ban would be no more effective there than it would be here.

---

Assault rifle definition;
assault rifle
as-sault rifle
noun
a rapid-fire, magazine-fed fully automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Is an AR-15 fully automatic?
No.
Is a Bushmaster ACR fully automatic?
No.
Is a civilian FN FAL fully automatic?
No.
It's not an assault rifle, it's an assault weapon. Now assault weapon is a term coined by the anti-gun movement based on cosmetics. The fact that my rifle is black with a pistol grip, foldable stock and flash hider does not make it any more deadly.
Next false statement?
And if you're going after full auto weapon, why? 1 crime since the tax stamp was introduced, and it was by a police officer.

Point at a target. Pull the trigger with a bolt-action rifle or revolver. You make one bullet-hole; then you have to work the bolt or recock the gun. Point at it with a semi-automatic rifle, pull the trigger. In the same time, you can make five holes. Point at it with a fully automatic rifle and pull the trigger; depending on the weapon, you've made anywhere between five to twenty holes in the same time it takes to fire a bolt-action rifle and make it ready to fire again. And that's a conservative estimate. Point at the target with a knife, and you've made no holes, but I'm smart enough to realize that if anyone tried to ban guns outright in the states they'd have a rebellion on their hands anyway (which is pretty disturbing if you ask me).

Let's start with a simple question, so I know how much I need to explain: have you ever fired a gun? If so, what kind? Did you fire at multiple targets?

This shouldn't be hard for you to understand. I'm not saying that rifles aren't deadly, but they are CERTAINLY less deadly than fully-automatic weapons, and if we're going to get anywhere we need to start with banning the biggest threats.

Automatic weapons have been used in a grand total of two murders since the introduction of ATF tax stamps. One of those was by a police officer.

Arguments about how there are lots of guns already hold no water, because the only thing that will happen if we don't ban them is that there will be more guns on on the market than there were before. If we're going to start getting rid of them, we need to start now.

Absolutely not true. Even if you ignore everything I said about "assault weapons" almost never actually being used in crime, starting to "get rid of them" is going to do next to nothing. The VAST majority (we're talking in the 80-90% range here) of illegal guns are handguns, usually revolvers, and usually pretty old. All the criminals who need or want guns now, for the most part have them. Those that don't, can't afford them, or are prevented by geography. The rate of confiscation will never catch up with the amount already out there. It would take decades to see any noticeable effect at all, even if you totally banned all handguns.

Let's not forget that, in real life, you'd be so scared shitless by a criminal holding a gun that you'd be more likely to hit another civilian than you would be the bad guy. That's if you're trained in hitting moving targets, know exactly where the vital spots are on a human being, and are so precise that you'd be able to hit those spots.

I'm not going to argue much with this, because I don't buy into the whole "concealed carry self-defense" stuff a whole lot, but I say this: it's not hard to incapacitate or kill someone with a gun. Shooting someone in the leg or arm actually has a pretty high chance of killing them, because those major arteries will bleed out very quickly. Most of the chest is occupied by the lungs, and being shot just about anywhere with a good sized bullet will have you on the ground, if you're not hopped up on PCP.

And since we're giving definitions, here's one:

Assault:
Verb
Make a physical attack on.
Noun
A physical attack: "his imprisonment for an assault on the film director"; "sexual assaults".

This is meaningless and irrelevant verbiage which I strongly hesitate to dignify with a response.

---

Source?

My source is the fact that I'm not insane

Ah. So all gun owners are insane now. Lovely. See, this is why we can't have an effective debate, or effective laws: both sides demonize eachother relentlessly.

---

Let me reiterate: the question is not "why do you need it", the question is "what good would banning it realistically do".

Well seeing as you don't need them it can't do any bad.

Let me rearrange that for you: "Well seeing as you don't need them movies, it then banning them can't do any bad"

I'm honestly a little miffed that because you don't like my hobby, you propose to ban it even though you completely fail to provide a good reason to do so, on the basis that it doesn't affect you.

---

More AWB deconstruction:

^This should be self-explanatory.

Now, let's see how easy it is to get around California's rather infamous laws! *que music*

!

[Nua Corda]

whereas gun nuts always think people are after them

Will you fucking stop lumping gun enthusiasts together? Seriously, it's annoying and offensive. That's like saying all black people steal cars.

[Hathram]

They may take our money through taxes and tariffs, they may steal our homes and land with eminent domain, they may make slaves of us and our sons through compulsory conscriptions, but they may never take our right to self-defense and by extension the right to self-determination through revolution against tyrants!

[Nua Corda]

1) Overestimate is overestimate. Besides, if you are comparing it to a revolver you're going to have the SAME EXACT RATE OF FIRE (maybe slightly slower or faster depending on the cylinder mechanism I suppose).

2) Not really. People seem to have this odd connection to things which they need to stay alive. England doesn't really have the problem anymore because they hunted them all out, but for western states in the US bears, wolves, and other sundry varieties of predatory critters are very common and pose a substantial threat.

3) Okay. Semi-automatic rifles aren't the biggest threat. Please check your argument and post again, or dial up your wikipedia for more information. This is a recording application "know your shit please".

4) Oddly, even with more guns on the market (and more dangerous 'assault weapons' as well since 2004) the homocide rate has been steadily decreasing. Hmmm...

5) No thanks.

6) Self-defense uses of guns aren't appropriate when one is being held up by a person who already has a gun. Either your being disingenuous in an attempt to score a point, or you have no idea what you're talking about.

7) Pointless (adj.) - of or having little or no relation to the topic at hand. Being irrelevant to the discussion. Eg: The use of this definition is pointless, much as the term 'assault weapon' is.

Why, you ask? Because if you're REALLY hinging on such technical labeling in the English language then the you have failed.

Besides, in the context of 'assault weapon' 'assault' is being used as an adjective, not a verb.

Numbers. Why didn't I think of that?

1) Assuming you have to cock the hammer back every time, you may get a slightly higher rate of fire than a bolt-action rifle. Most people aren't Western action heroes capable of emptying six shots in five seconds. I probably should have been more clear; sorry about that. I'm grouping the revolvers which cock for you in with semi-automatic weapons.

2) Call animal control. And my grandfather lives out in the bush; he scares off bears with pellet guns. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to do the same.

3) Biggest threat=most dangerous and deadly. Semi-automatic weapons kill more people, but that has nothing to do with potency--semi-automatic weapons are cheaper, on average, than fully automatic weapons. Both should be banned, but let's start with the ones that are capable of killing entire crowds, 'kay?

4) And yet you still have more crime than countries like Canada with strict regulations on guns.

6) What? Why else would you need one? To shoot the guy trying to hit you? Just take some self-defence classes; it'll be cheaper in the long run since you won't have to buy any guns or weapons, only lessons.

7) You posted the definition of assault weapons as a rebuttal for my question as to the point of defending "*assault* weapons." I used the definition of assault to explain--the only thing they could be used for is assaulting something. If that's a wild animal, that's fine, but you shouldn't NEED a semi-automatic weapon with an extend clip to scare off a coyote. All you'd need for that is a few blanks and a bolt-action rifle for gods' sakes...

I'm heading to sleep now. I'll reply to any replies to this post in the morning.

1) The fire rate of a bolt action rifle is more than enough to kill heaps of unarmed civilians.

2) Animal control doesn't have a magical teleporter. Some people live in rural areas where the nearest police station may be a hundred miles away, let along animal control.

3) Again, semi-automatic rifle are A. not used in more than 5% of crime, and B. no more effective for massacres than bolt actions.

4) Regulation being the key word in that sentence. In Canada, you can own a Bushmaster AR-15. You just need a license for it, and registration. Not to mention that you're looking at gun crime in an incredibly simplistic, almost child-like way.

5) Fun?

6) Extended clip? You just lost the right to talk with any authority on this.

[Nua Corda]

They may take our money through taxes and tariffs, they may steal our homes and land with eminent domain, they may make slaves of us and our sons through compulsory conscriptions, but they may never take our right to self-defense and by extension the right to self-determination through revolution against tyrants!

Cry me a river. Better yet, go make a list of all the things government does for your ungrateful little ass every day. It'd be more productive.

[Big Jim P]

They may take our money through taxes and tariffs, they may steal our homes and land with eminent domain, they may make slaves of us and our sons through compulsory conscriptions, but they may never take our right to self-defense and by extension the right to self-determination through revolution against tyrants!

Cry me a river. Better yet, go make a list of all the things government does for your ungrateful little ass every day. It'd be more productive.

The government does a great many things for us, but until that includes a guarantee of individual, personal security, then there is a need for citizens to be able to own and use firearms for self-defense.

[Occupied Deutschland]

1) Overestimate is overestimate. Besides, if you are comparing it to a revolver you're going to have the SAME EXACT RATE OF FIRE (maybe slightly slower or faster depending on the cylinder mechanism I suppose).

2) Not really. People seem to have this odd connection to things which they need to stay alive. England doesn't really have the problem anymore because they hunted them all out, but for western states in the US bears, wolves, and other sundry varieties of predatory critters are very common and pose a substantial threat.

3) Okay. Semi-automatic rifles aren't the biggest threat. Please check your argument and post again, or dial up your wikipedia for more information. This is a recording application "know your shit please".

4) Oddly, even with more guns on the market (and more dangerous 'assault weapons' as well since 2004) the homocide rate has been steadily decreasing. Hmmm...

5) No thanks.

6) Self-defense uses of guns aren't appropriate when one is being held up by a person who already has a gun. Either your being disingenuous in an attempt to score a point, or you have no idea what you're talking about.

7) Pointless (adj.) - of or having little or no relation to the topic at hand. Being irrelevant to the discussion. Eg: The use of this definition is pointless, much as the term 'assault weapon' is.

Why, you ask? Because if you're REALLY hinging on such technical labeling in the English language then the you have failed.

Besides, in the context of 'assault weapon' 'assault' is being used as an adjective, not a verb.

Numbers. Why didn't I think of that?

1) Assuming you have to cock the hammer back every time, you may get a slightly higher rate of fire than a bolt-action rifle. Most people aren't Western action heroes capable of emptying six shots in five seconds. I probably should have been more clear; sorry about that. I'm grouping the revolvers which cock for you in with semi-automatic weapons.

2) Call animal control. And my grandfather lives out in the bush; he scares off bears with pellet guns. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to do the same.

3) Biggest threat=most dangerous and deadly. Semi-automatic weapons kill more people, but that has nothing to do with potency--semi-automatic weapons are cheaper, on average, than fully automatic weapons. Both should be banned, but let's start with the ones that are capable of killing entire crowds, 'kay?

4) And yet you still have more crime than countries like Canada with strict regulations on guns.

6) What? Why else would you need one? To shoot the guy trying to hit you? Just take some self-defence classes; it'll be cheaper in the long run since you won't have to buy any guns or weapons, only lessons.

7) You posted the definition of assault weapons as a rebuttal for my question as to the point of defending "*assault* weapons." I used the definition of assault to explain--the only thing they could be used for is assaulting something. If that's a wild animal, that's fine, but you shouldn't NEED a semi-automatic weapon with an extend clip to scare off a coyote. All you'd need for that is a few blanks and a bolt-action rifle for gods' sakes...

I'm heading to sleep now. I'll reply to any replies to this post in the morning.

1) Well, I guess that logic works then.

2) ...I really don't want to spam the thread with this kind of thing, but it is necessary to properly convey my reaction. For starters, pellet guns are going to piss bears off, not chase them away. Second, pellet guns aren't going to stop jack for shit. When I'm out hiking I want to make the wild animal charging at me with the intent of EATING ME to stop, not sting it, which is about the most a pellet is going to do. Seriously...I...y'know, watch the video again, there are no words to express my mirth at this claim.

3) We're sorry, the argument you have presented has already been proven wrong. Please check your argument and post again, or dial up your wikipedia for more information. This is a recording application "know your shit please". Dee-doot...(Try searching this thread for FBI, and read the post the letters appear in, or go to FBI Homocide data on google Table #6)

4) There's nobody to SHOOT in Canada. Not to mention drugs, poverty, and other statistical differences.

6) To shoot the animal attacking you (or your own animals). There are also numerous other situations of self-defensive use of a firearm than when someone is holding you at gunpoint.

7) The name 'assault' doesn't affect these firearms function in any manner.

[Nua Corda]

Cry me a river. Better yet, go make a list of all the things government does for your ungrateful little ass every day. It'd be more productive.

the government does a great many things for us, but until that includes a guarantee of individual, personal security, then there is a need for citizens to be able to own and use firearms for self-defense.

I'm not disputing your right to own and use firearms in whatever manner you wish, so long as you don't hurt anyone needlessly. I just don't live in constant fear of criminals.

[Naphtalon]

Let's step back a moment here. What even defines an assault weapon? Polymer construction? Fancy military trappings? Rails and sights? Arguably a .30-06 hunting rifle could do a lot more damage than a 5.56 "assault" rifle. The ban on high capacity magazines I do agree with, however.

[Big Jim P]

the government does a great many things for us, but until that includes a guarantee of individual, personal security, then there is a need for citizens to be able to own and use firearms for self-defense.

I'm not disputing your right to own and use firearms in whatever manner you wish, so long as you don't hurt anyone needlessly. I just don't live in constant fear of criminals.

I have never had to fire a gun in anger, nor accidentally. Nor do I live in constant fear of criminals. They are out there, so I prefer to be prepared.

[Jassysworth 1]

yes we should ban assault weapons...

we should ban all guns for that matter. Then the US can join the rest of the civilized world and not have so many school shootings...

[Rupture Farms co]

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

Not going to take a side, but this is just BS. How will a tyrannical government take over the US? And how would a rifle help against a trained army, an air force, tanks, and a navy?

The threat of tyranny right now, at the turn of the century is the same as it was in 1700,1800, and 1900. And so what if just a rifle cannot take down an "armada", so are you going to just give up? And in addition, the Vietcong got alot done with just a rifle, a bayonet and some explosives.

[Nua Corda]

Let's step back a moment here. What even defines an assault weapon? Polymer construction? Fancy military trappings? Rails and sights? Arguably a .30-06 hunting rifle could do a lot more damage than a 5.56 "assault" rifle. The ban on high capacity magazines I do agree with, however.

It'll do virtually nothing. An SKS loading from stripper clips is just as deadly as a tacticool AR-15 with a ridiculous drum.

[Big Jim P]

Let's step back a moment here. What even defines an assault weapon? Polymer construction? Fancy military trappings? Rails and sights? Arguably a .30-06 hunting rifle could do a lot more damage than a 5.56 "assault" rifle. The ban on high capacity magazines I do agree with, however.

The term "assault weapon" is just a buzzword used to make banning them seem like a good thing.

[Nua Corda]

yes we should ban assault weapons...

we should ban all guns for that matter. Then the US can join the rest of the civilized world and not have so many school shootings...

Go ahead. Don't read the thread. I'd repost my post detailing why this is full of shit, but I'm too lazy and you're not worth it. Find it yourself, read it, and then you can talk.

Not going to take a side, but this is just BS. How will a tyrannical government take over the US? And how would a rifle help against a trained army, an air force, tanks, and a navy?

The threat of tyranny right now, at the turn of the century is the same as it was in 1700,1800, and 1900. And so what if just a rifle cannot take down an "armada", so are you going to just give up? And in addition, the Vietcong got alot done with just a rifle, a bayonet and some explosives.

The government is not out to get you. Take off the tinfoil hat and get some sun.

[Jassysworth 1]

Not going to take a side, but this is just BS. How will a tyrannical government take over the US? And how would a rifle help against a trained army, an air force, tanks, and a navy?

The threat of tyranny right now, at the turn of the century is the same as it was in 1700,1800, and 1900. And so what if just a rifle cannot take down an "armada", so are you going to just give up? And in addition, the Vietcong got alot done with just a rifle, a bayonet and some explosives.

That's why you fight tyranny by choosing your leaders through election...

you know, using the democratic system to safeguard your rights like the rest of the civilized world?

whole point of having a democracy is to solve the nation's disagreements through voting, discussion and debate rather than with guns and bullets.

But americans never seem to get that... hell they couldn't even solve their nation's most divisive issue (slavery) through a purely democratic way and had to fight it out with bullets... Sadly some things may never change and people still think bullets solve everything.

[Jassysworth 1]

yes we should ban assault weapons...

we should ban all guns for that matter. Then the US can join the rest of the civilized world and not have so many school shootings...

Go ahead. Don't read the thread. I'd repost my post detailing why this is full of shit, but I'm too lazy and you're not worth it. Find it yourself, read it, and then you can talk.

I've got new for you... the rest of the free and democratic world (and even some places that aren't democratic like China) are doing a very good job keeping the guns out of criminals... AND they don't have random shooting sprees that hit the media all the time.

People can actually live in those places without being afraid of getting shot by their crazy neighbor for the most part. US has a lot of catching up to do...

Freedom to shoot up the whole neighborhood isn't a freedom to be valued...

[Hathram]

yes we should ban assault weapons...

we should ban all guns for that matter. Then the US can join the rest of the civilized world and not have so many school shootings...

Go ahead. Don't read the thread. I'd repost my post detailing why this is full of shit, but I'm too lazy and you're not worth it. Find it yourself, read it, and then you can talk.

The threat of tyranny right now, at the turn of the century is the same as it was in 1700,1800, and 1900. And so what if just a rifle cannot take down an "armada", so are you going to just give up? And in addition, the Vietcong got alot done with just a rifle, a bayonet and some explosives.

The government is not out to get you. Take off the tinfoil hat and get some sun.

It's about being prepared.
Same reason why I own a gun isn't because I know criminals are out to get me, but because it can happen.

[Rupture Farms co]

Let's step back a moment here. What even defines an assault weapon? Polymer construction? Fancy military trappings? Rails and sights? Arguably a .30-06 hunting rifle could do a lot more damage than a 5.56 "assault" rifle. The ban on high capacity magazines I do agree with, however.

The term "assault weapon" is just a buzzword used to make banning them seem like a good thing.

Truth, the term only appeared in the early 90's. I guess thats when we started losing our sanity anyways.

[Rupture Farms co]

The threat of tyranny right now, at the turn of the century is the same as it was in 1700,1800, and 1900. And so what if just a rifle cannot take down an "armada", so are you going to just give up? And in addition, the Vietcong got alot done with just a rifle, a bayonet and some explosives.

The government is not out to get you. Take off the tinfoil hat and get some sun.

It's about being prepared.
Same reason why I own a gun isn't because I know criminals are out to get me, but because it can happen.[/quote]
^ this