Mr. President, do NOT ban assault weapons!

[Gun Manufacturers]

What is the point of a gun other than shooting things? Of course, assault weapons should be banned, it is common sense.

This is an "assault weapon" according to Connecticut law.



This is not.



Which is more dangerous?

[Imperializt Russia]

Assault weapon is defined as: "Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud." I would be happy for a blanket ban on firearms to the civilians population if they do not have a background check, have a licence and pass psychological tests.

I will say this, if you are to defend yourself with a gun, it will likely the thug will also have a gun and will pull the gun first on you sir because they would be the aggressor. The gun is meaningless if that happens. Having no gun laws just gives thugs guns more easily.

First I would like to note the latest mass shooter had a background check, a license, and had passed a psychological test.

There are allegations the psych test was falsified.

[Spirit of Hope]

First I would like to note the latest mass shooter had a background check, a license, and had passed a psychological test.

There are allegations the psych test was falsified.

Latest I heard was that the company put the wrong name down for the doctor. I'll confirm what is going on before I bring it up again though. Really he should have been failed for a bunch of things, but none seamed to make it to the right people.

[Imperializt Russia]

There are allegations the psych test was falsified.

Latest I heard was that the company put the wrong name down for the doctor. I'll confirm what is going on before I bring it up again though. Really he should have been failed for a bunch of things, but none seamed to make it to the right people.

Putting down the name of a doctor that wasn't even in the same state is quite the impressive mistake, even for this specific company.
Given their track record in the UK, I'm leaning way closer to "falsified".

[Big Jim P]

Please define for me what an assault weapon is.

Military style semi autos represent less than 10% of all gun crimes, yet they are some of the most popular firearms for civilians. Who use them for shooting things like cans, metal plate, clay disks, and paper. From which they derive much enjoyment. They also occasionally use these firearms to protect them selves and get meat for them to eat.

Assault weapon is defined as: "Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud." I would be happy for a blanket ban on firearms to the civilians population if they do not have a background check, have a licence and pass psychological tests.

I will say this, if you are to defend yourself with a gun, it will likely the thug will also have a gun and will pull the gun first on you sir because they would be the aggressor. The gun is meaningless if that happens. Having no gun laws just gives thugs guns more easily.

While having restrictive laws means the thug is the only one to have a gun.

[Annorax]

The Supreme Court has never differed from what I stated above, if they have please show me in what case.

And yet, while declaring some gun control measures as unconstitutional, they've upheld billions of others.

If you believe "'shall not be infringed' cannot be interpreted", then clearly SCOTUS doesn't agree with you.

Can you please cite something specific or is that just your feeling on the issue?

[Airlia]

There is absolutely no reason for assault weapons to be around for the general public. Theres no reason anyone should even have a pistol, really. Hunting rifles and whatever, have em, thats fine. But for the safety of everyone in the country, assault weapons have no reason to be around.

[Spirit of Hope]

There is absolutely no reason for assault weapons to be around for the general public. Theres no reason anyone should even have a pistol, really. Hunting rifles and whatever, have em, thats fine. But for the safety of everyone in the country, assault weapons have no reason to be around.

Any "assault weapon" has little technically diffrent from a hunting rifle. They represent less than 10% of crime, and are one of the most popular civilian firearms. They really aren't a dangerous to the general public.

Pistols are the easiest to carry around for self defense, which people use them for.

[Xadufell]

There is absolutely no reason for assault weapons to be around for the general public. Theres no reason anyone should even have a pistol, really. Hunting rifles and whatever, have em, thats fine. But for the safety of everyone in the country, assault weapons have no reason to be around.

There's no reason I should have a small, self defense firearm to protect myself against people wielding knives or other melee weapons? And so that I can't shoot any person that enters my home illegally? If there's no reason I should have a gun than you might as well take away the police's guns. And yes, I have a hunting rifle, it's an AR-15.

[Gauthier]

The basic problem is not guns and rifles with prolific rates of fire. The problem is guns and rifles with prolific rates of fire ending up in the hands of unstable fucknuts like Omar Mateen, whether through corporate treachery like in the case of Mateen or sparse gun laws and/or enforcement of them.

[Big Jim P]

There is absolutely no reason for assault weapons to be around for the general public. Theres no reason anyone should even have a pistol, really. Hunting rifles and whatever, have em, thats fine. But for the safety of everyone in the country, assault weapons have no reason to be around.

Don't believe in personal, home or property defense I take it.

[Big Jim P]

The basic problem is not guns and rifles with prolific rates of fire. The problem is guns and rifles with prolific rates of fire ending up in the hands of unstable fucknuts like Omar Mateen, whether through corporate treachery like in the case of Mateen or sparse gun laws and/or enforcement of them.

And the problem with every gun-control law or proposal is that they target the stable and law-abiding, while not even getting noticed by the unstable or criminal.

[Big Jim P]

There is absolutely no reason for assault weapons to be around for the general public. Theres no reason anyone should even have a pistol, really. Hunting rifles and whatever, have em, thats fine. But for the safety of everyone in the country, assault weapons have no reason to be around.

There's no reason I should have a small, self defense firearm to protect myself against people wielding knives or other melee weapons? And so that I can't shoot any person that enters my home illegally? If there's no reason I should have a gun than you might as well take away the police's guns. And yes, I have a hunting rifle, it's an AR-15.

My target, sport and defense rifle is an AR. *nod*

[Washington Resistance Army]

Banning drugs worked, that's why no one can get drugs now a days, so banning weapons makes them di-

Oh wait...oh no...

Not that this is necessarily untrue, but I can't clear a patch of dirt out back by the bushes and grow a crop of P90s.

So it's not a perfect comparison.

If you have some decent machinery you can make one though.

[Washington Resistance Army]

There is absolutely no reason for assault weapons to be around for the general public. Theres no reason anyone should even have a pistol, really. Hunting rifles and whatever, have em, thats fine. But for the safety of everyone in the country, assault weapons have no reason to be around.

"Assault weapons" are no different from many hunting rifles.

[Gauthier]

The basic problem is not guns and rifles with prolific rates of fire. The problem is guns and rifles with prolific rates of fire ending up in the hands of unstable fucknuts like Omar Mateen, whether through corporate treachery like in the case of Mateen or sparse gun laws and/or enforcement of them.

And the problem with every gun-control law or proposal is that they target the stable and law-abiding, while not even getting noticed by the unstable or criminal.

So have no gun laws and a Get Armed or Get Dead frontier mentality eh?

[Wolf Pack Purity]

If we take a look at statistics, the very people who vote Democrat and are in favor of gun control are the ones who commit most of the crimes. The recent shooter in Orlando was a registered Democrat. The government has no place in our personal lives. I can own whatever I want and do whatever I want with my own money, as long as I'm not hurting anyone. There are millions of gun owners and trillions of rounds of ammunition in America. If gun owners were the problem, you'd friggin' know it. Assault weapons are already banned in America (unless they are pre-1982). Semi-automatic AR-15s are not assault weapons. "OMG! IT LOOKS LIKE A SCARY MILITARY GUN! BAN IT!"

Every gun law is an infringement. If you seek to take my guns, I will resist you. If you don't see a problem with the government getting stronger and trying to disarm the citizens, then you're an idiot.

[Purpelia]

Every gun law is an infringement. If you seek to take my guns, I will resist you. If you don't see a problem with the government getting stronger and trying to disarm the citizens, then you're an idiot.

Whilst taking peoples property away is indeed a topic for discussion I think you overstepped here just a tad. Let's be real. Your government has access to tanks, aircraft and even atomic weapons. Just what do you think armed citizenry is going to be able to do against those? Are you going to shoot at the mushroom cloud until the hit points run out? The day and age where a militia was anything but a bump stop are dead and gone. Just realize that.

Now, can we get back to how you should all vote for Trump so that she who must not be named does not come into power and take all your guns away?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Every gun law is an infringement. If you seek to take my guns, I will resist you. If you don't see a problem with the government getting stronger and trying to disarm the citizens, then you're an idiot.

Whilst taking peoples property away is indeed a topic for discussion I think you overstepped here just a tad. Let's be real. Your government has access to tanks, aircraft and even atomic weapons. Just what do you think armed citizenry is going to be able to do against those? Are you going to shoot at the mushroom cloud until the hit points run out? The day and age where a militia was anything but a bump stop are dead and gone. Just realize that.

Now, can we get back to how you should all vote for Trump so that she who must not be named does not come into power and take all your guns away?

Daily reminder that citizens own anti tank weaponry and armored vehicles as well

[Wolf Pack Purity]

There is absolutely no reason for assault weapons to be around for the general public. Theres no reason anyone should even have a pistol, really. Hunting rifles and whatever, have em, thats fine. But for the safety of everyone in the country, assault weapons have no reason to be around.

"No need"? The government is getting stronger and more powerful. I need my guns to provide for my family, protect those who need it, and to fight tyranny. No government is going to leave me defenseless as they encroach upon my freedoms.

[Paddy O Fernature]

I'm starting to wonder if the Founding Fathers knew how much people would wank on that one particular segment of the Constitution.

It's like, guys, we get it. You want to have assault rifles for some inexplicable reason. People want to not be shot to death. Let's make a fucking compromise here.

Obama doesn't want your guns. Lawmakers don't want to disarm your for the new PC Shadow Government.

People want to not be dead. People want their kids to not be dead.

I think gun-owners can live with not having drum magazines and M4A1 Assault Rifles.

I know I get along just fine without them.

Good for you.

Now, again, can yet another anti gunner kindly fucking educate yourself on the subject at hand before trying to dictate what millions of law abiding citizens can and cant do? We all would fucking appreciate it if you did, before jumping up on that soapbox you have there.

What this means of course is that I should be legally allowed to buy an F-22, or a Predator, or a 155mm howitzer, or a M1 Abrams, or an Arleigh Burke class Destroyer.

People legally can own these things Roski, just nobody does as they cost a metric shitload. However, civilians in America already do own surplus fighters, tanks, and ships.

Banning assault weapons isn't the fix.

Fully Agree. Finally someone is starting to make sense...

The universal background checks, and that proposed tax on ammunition sounds fine.

Spoke to soon. Government has no right to force me to run a background check on someone I'm selling too via a private sale. Unless they plan to make it free of charge and offer it in a no hassle solution of course, but I doubt they would. Taxing ammunition to discourage use of firearms is about as dishonest and sleazy of a tactic as they come. People who suggest this and claim they are not "anti gun" really make raise an eyebrow in astonishment.

Or, higher taxes on fully automatic rifles.

Cause something that's literally a NON ISSUE with crime should be taxed even further. Yup, I really spoke too soon.

What is the point of a gun other than shooting things? Of course, assault weapons should be banned, it is common sense.

Yes, it's common sense to ban something according to the FBI that kills less people a year then unarmed assaults do.

Assault weapon is defined as: "Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud." I would be happy for a blanket ban on firearms to the civilians population if they do not have a background check, have a licence and pass psychological tests.

I will say this, if you are to defend yourself with a gun, it will likely the thug will also have a gun and will pull the gun first on you sir because they would be the aggressor. The gun is meaningless if that happens. Having no gun laws just gives thugs guns more easily.

First I would like to note the latest mass shooter had a background check, a license, and had passed a psychological test.

As you may note from the definition of assault weapon it is rather nonsensical, defining a gun by mostly cosmetic features, such as pistol grips, flash suppressors and barrel shrouds. Plus as I already noted military style semi autos represent a minority of crime.

I happily support an expansion of the current background check rules, let make NICS publicly open and require it's use in all sales.

A license makes little sense, accidents account for a small portion of gun deaths and injuries. The only purpose it would really serve would be to add more steps to getting a gun, making it harder for little direct gain.

Psychological tests are much the same, only a tiny percentage of crime is committed by those with a mental illness, and it isn't always something that is easy to detect. Again it would largely serve to simply complicate getting a gun with little direct decrease in crime.

As to your self defense point, it is absurd. First humans aren't the only thing to defend against, some animals can be quite dangerous on their own. Secondly not all criminals use guns, only about 10% of non fatal violent crime involves a gun. Third a gun is not meaningless in self defense just because the criminal has one, it depends on a number of factors. Forth we have gun laws, designed to keep criminals from getting guns.

Well said, yet again.

There is absolutely no reason for assault weapons to be around for the general public. Theres no reason anyone should even have a pistol, really. Hunting rifles and whatever, have em, thats fine. But for the safety of everyone in the country, assault weapons have no reason to be around.

Now, again, can yet another anti gunner kindly fucking educate yourself on the subject at hand before trying to dictate what millions of law abiding citizens can and cant do? We all would fucking appreciate it if you did, before jumping up on that soapbox you have there.

The basic problem is not guns and rifles with prolific rates of fire. The problem is guns and rifles with prolific rates of fire ending up in the hands of unstable fucknuts like Omar Mateen, whether through corporate treachery like in the case of Mateen or sparse gun laws and/or enforcement of them.

And the problem with every gun-control law or proposal is that they target the stable and law-abiding, while not even getting noticed by the unstable or criminal.

Indeed so. It's almost like they don't care....

[Gauthier]

Whilst taking peoples property away is indeed a topic for discussion I think you overstepped here just a tad. Let's be real. Your government has access to tanks, aircraft and even atomic weapons. Just what do you think armed citizenry is going to be able to do against those? Are you going to shoot at the mushroom cloud until the hit points run out? The day and age where a militia was anything but a bump stop are dead and gone. Just realize that.

Now, can we get back to how you should all vote for Trump so that she who must not be named does not come into power and take all your guns away?

Daily reminder that citizens own anti tank weaponry and armored vehicles as well

Citizens also own Predator drones and Hellfire missiles don't forget. *nod*

[Big Jim P]

And the problem with every gun-control law or proposal is that they target the stable and law-abiding, while not even getting noticed by the unstable or criminal.

So have no gun laws and a Get Armed or Get Dead frontier mentality eh?

How about gun laws that do not unduly penalize lawful citizens, while doing nothing to prevent criminals from getting them?

[Wolf Pack Purity]

Every gun law is an infringement. If you seek to take my guns, I will resist you. If you don't see a problem with the government getting stronger and trying to disarm the citizens, then you're an idiot.

Whilst taking peoples property away is indeed a topic for discussion I think you overstepped here just a tad. Let's be real. Your government has access to tanks, aircraft and even atomic weapons. Just what do you think armed citizenry is going to be able to do against those? Are you going to shoot at the mushroom cloud until the hit points run out? The day and age where a militia was anything but a bump stop are dead and gone. Just realize that.

Now, can we get back to how you should all vote for Trump so that she who must not be named does not come into power and take all your guns away?

A well-organized militia could protect the populace. A well-organized plan could take over a National Guard armory, and then another and another, if need be. There will always be a way.

[Gauthier]

So have no gun laws and a Get Armed or Get Dead frontier mentality eh?

How about gun laws that do not unduly penalize lawful citizens, while doing nothing to prevent criminals from getting them?

Just what exactly would those entail, unless that's just Trumpian vagueness to dismiss the issue altogether?