Mr. President, do NOT ban assault weapons!

[The balkens]

TIL that the TUSK doesn't exist.

Yes yes and you would absolutely love it to be deployed in some country town somewhere to show those inbred folk the light of Gun control.

[May Mays]

TIL that the TUSK doesn't exist.

I mean TUSK actually has very little to do with Urban combat as it is just an upgrade that was applied to in service M1A1 tanks to give them armor equal to that of the M1A2.

Certain types of armor aren't magically better in city scapes.

Which is again, irrelevant to the discussion.

[Vassenor]

TIL that the TUSK doesn't exist.

Yes yes and you would absolutely love it to be deployed in some country town somewhere to show those inbred folk the light of Gun control.

Are you trying to suggest I want people to die to further my agenda?

[The balkens]

Yes yes and you would absolutely love it to be deployed in some country town somewhere to show those inbred folk the light of Gun control.

Are you trying to suggest I want people to die to further my agenda?

well you seem to not have a problem with american tanks being deployed to enforce shit that you support.

[Vassenor]

Are you trying to suggest I want people to die to further my agenda?

well you seem to not have a problem with american tanks being deployed to enforce shit that you support.

And you seem to not have a problem with putting words into my mouth to fit your narrative.

[The balkens]

well you seem to not have a problem with american tanks being deployed to enforce shit that you support.

And you seem to not have a problem with putting words into my mouth to fit your narrative.

Considering your other posts, neither do you.

[Sichem]

I really want to point out my country's much stricter gun ownership laws - if you're not affiliated with the IDF, don't bother - but at the same time I don't want to get involved in this thread.

...Oh wait

[Gauthier]

I really want to point out my country's much stricter gun ownership laws - if you're not affiliated with the IDF, don't bother - but at the same time I don't want to get involved in this thread.

...Oh wait

Since there's mandatory enlistment in the IDF is there really a practical difference?

[The Foxes Swamp]

if they wanted to take all your guns now that's a reason to bitch and moan but they just wanna take some of the more powerful weapons on the possibility that it will make things better for everyone.

[Washington Resistance Army]

if they wanted to take all your guns now that's a reason to bitch and moan but they just wanna take some of the more powerful weapons on the possibility that it will make things better for everyone.

Except it won't, just like the last Assault Weapons Ban did literally nothing.

[Paddy O Fernature]

if they wanted to take all your guns now that's a reason to bitch and moan but they just wanna take some of the more powerful weapons on the possibility that it will make things better for everyone.

Except they really aren't. They are trying to go after a pretty much made up class of weapons, that account for a tiny fraction of all firearm related deaths (not including suicides) a year. Also, if you think 5.56 is a high powered round, your going to shit bricks when you see my hunting rifle chambered in 308.

[Imperializt Russia]

If soldiers have to be deployed to maintain the peace, and you open fire on soldiers, they're going to return fire.

In this certain case of Gun rights, why would soldiers have to be deployed at all?

If this bizarre fascination with "teh gub'mint" continually escalates, resulting in repeated instances of violent civil disobedience and attacks on law enforcement, there may be no options remaining.

[Imperializt Russia]

TIL that the TUSK doesn't exist.

Yes yes and you would absolutely love it to be deployed in some country town somewhere to show those inbred folk the light of Gun control.

That's not even alluded to, once.

[Imperializt Russia]

if they wanted to take all your guns now that's a reason to bitch and moan but they just wanna take some of the more powerful weapons on the possibility that it will make things better for everyone.

Except they really aren't. They are trying to go after a pretty much made up class of weapons, that account for a tiny fraction of all firearm related deaths (not including suicides) a year. Also, if you think 5.56 is a high powered round, your going to shit bricks when you see my hunting rifle chambered in 308.

Have you failed to realise that proposed AWBs only come up in the wake of mass shootings, with an intention of stopping mass shootings, fully realising that it won't end all gun crime ever?

People don't want to see Columbine repeated. They don't want to see Aurora repeated. They don't want to see Sandy Hook, V-Tech or Orlando repeated.

[Gauthier]

In this certain case of Gun rights, why would soldiers have to be deployed at all?

If this bizarre fascination with "teh gub'mint" continually escalates, resulting in repeated instances of violent civil disobedience and attacks on law enforcement, there may be no options remaining.

Nevada and Oregon come to mind.

[The East Marches]

Except they really aren't. They are trying to go after a pretty much made up class of weapons, that account for a tiny fraction of all firearm related deaths (not including suicides) a year. Also, if you think 5.56 is a high powered round, your going to shit bricks when you see my hunting rifle chambered in 308.

Have you failed to realise that proposed AWBs only come up in the wake of mass shootings, with an intention of stopping mass shootings, fully realising that it won't end all gun crime ever?

People don't want to see Columbine repeated. They don't want to see Aurora repeated. They don't want to see Sandy Hook, V-Tech or Orlando repeated.

Columbine happened during the AWB. It proved how effective it really was, which is to say not at all.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Except they really aren't. They are trying to go after a pretty much made up class of weapons, that account for a tiny fraction of all firearm related deaths (not including suicides) a year. Also, if you think 5.56 is a high powered round, your going to shit bricks when you see my hunting rifle chambered in 308.

Have you failed to realise that proposed AWBs only come up in the wake of mass shootings, with an intention of stopping mass shootings, fully realising that it won't end all gun crime ever?

People don't want to see Columbine repeated. They don't want to see Aurora repeated. They don't want to see Sandy Hook, V-Tech or Orlando repeated.

They won't even stop mass shootings, there was something like 15 of them while the AWB was around.

[Imperializt Russia]

Have you failed to realise that proposed AWBs only come up in the wake of mass shootings, with an intention of stopping mass shootings, fully realising that it won't end all gun crime ever?

People don't want to see Columbine repeated. They don't want to see Aurora repeated. They don't want to see Sandy Hook, V-Tech or Orlando repeated.

Columbine happened during the AWB. It proved how effective it really was, which is to say not at all.

You seem to have overlooked the rather critical word, "intention".

And forgotten that I have never supported AWBs, because they achieve little.

[Maple Cyrup]

As stupid as it may sound the "guns don't kill people, people do" is true. Banning guns won't stop people killing people, it is not a solution to a deep problem.

It is poverty, loss of a good future and desperation. Banning guns won't stop people messing up other people badly.

[The East Marches]

Columbine happened during the AWB. It proved how effective it really was, which is to say not at all.

You seem to have overlooked the rather critical word, "intention".

And forgotten that I have never supported AWBs, because they achieve little.

My apologies, I need to go to hooked on phonics and relearn English. brb.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Except they really aren't. They are trying to go after a pretty much made up class of weapons, that account for a tiny fraction of all firearm related deaths (not including suicides) a year. Also, if you think 5.56 is a high powered round, your going to shit bricks when you see my hunting rifle chambered in 308.

Have you failed to realise that proposed AWBs only come up in the wake of mass shootings, with an intention of stopping mass shootings, fully realising that it won't end all gun crime ever?

People don't want to see Columbine repeated. They don't want to see Aurora repeated. They don't want to see Sandy Hook, V-Tech or Orlando repeated.

Neither do I, but banning scary black rifles won't make the problem go away and isn't the answer.

[Sichem]

I really want to point out my country's much stricter gun ownership laws - if you're not affiliated with the IDF, don't bother - but at the same time I don't want to get involved in this thread.

...Oh wait

Since there's mandatory enlistment in the IDF is there really a practical difference?

Mandatory, but not all-encompassing. Conservative Jews either do not enlist or serve in a "lite" version where they can continue religious studies. An absolute majority of Israeli Arabs do not enlist, too.

[Saiwania]

People don't want to see Columbine repeated. They don't want to see Aurora repeated. They don't want to see Sandy Hook, V-Tech or Orlando repeated.

Out of those incidents, Virginia Tech was done without any assault weapons but rather with two handguns. So far as I can tell, AWBs won't do anything until there isn't a high circulation of firearms in the US which is already existing. A massive confiscation would have to be done practically speaking and because there is such a large pool, it'll be nigh impossible to get rid of all or even most of it. It'd arguably be easier to go after ammunition manufacture.

[Genivaria]

People don't want to see Columbine repeated. They don't want to see Aurora repeated. They don't want to see Sandy Hook, V-Tech or Orlando repeated.

Out of those incidents, Virginia Tech was done without any assault weapons but rather with two handguns. So far as I can tell, AWBs won't do anything until there isn't a high circulation of firearms in the US which is already existing. A massive confiscation would have to be done practically speaking and because there is such a large pool, it'll be nigh impossible to get rid of all or even most of it. It'd arguably be easier to go after ammunition manufacture.

I am perfectly fine with strong regulation of handguns as they more of a security concern than long guns anyway.

[The Foxes Swamp]

if they wanted to take all your guns now that's a reason to bitch and moan but they just wanna take some of the more powerful weapons on the possibility that it will make things better for everyone.

Except they really aren't. They are trying to go after a pretty much made up class of weapons, that account for a tiny fraction of all firearm related deaths (not including suicides) a year. Also, if you think 5.56 is a high powered round, your going to shit bricks when you see my hunting rifle chambered in 308.

as a foreigner the only time i hear talk about bans is when there has been a mass shooting.

so having these weapons vs not having them you see absolutely no chance of possible improvement on the present conditions?