Should Assault Weapons be banned?

[Jormengand]

Infantry hold ground, but tanks, planes and heavy artillery take ground. Like it or not, people would die by the hundreds with each shot of an artillery cannon. Even if you won, it wouldn't be much of a victory.

Again, why do we want to fight the government? Is Obama THAT bad?

Fighting the government with bullets is only appropriate when it's no longer possible to fight it with the ballot box and the soap box.

Thus, never. The government is not a freaking tyranny.

[Ularn]

Ooh goody! My first gun thread!

Being a European, I really don't fetishise guns the way many in the US appear to. I have never, ever felt the need to walk around armed in order to protect my person or my rights, and have never been in a situation where I thought that being armed would have been helpful to me. I see no good reason for the civilian population to require guns and believe America would be better off with a universal firearms ban. However, I'm enough of a realist to realise that ain't gonna happen, so here's a compromise that I think most people should probably agree with:

If you ask me, guns should be treated like cars. In the right hands, a car can be safe, useful, and even fun to use. However, in the hands of the wrong person - be they deranged, stupid or simply untrained - a car becomes potentially deadly weapon and a serious and deadly risk to the user and the population at large. For this reason, the government places restrictions on the use of cars. If you want to operate a car then you have to prove you are responsible enough to drive one; you have to undergo training to use it correctly and complete a test to demonstrate that ability. Your ownership of your car is registered and you obey certain rules regarding its use, and if you break those rules then you will lose the right to drive and may face other criminal sanctions.

The same should be true of guns. If you want a gun, you should be of a responsible age and capable of passing whatever tests are necessary to demonstrate you can use a gun responsibly and safely. If you can demonstrate sufficient responsibility to use a gun correctly then you can have a licence to operate a gun. The ownership of your gun(s) should be registered and if its use subject to reasonable rules and restrictions as are necessary for the protection of the public, and breaking those rules will lead to your right to use guns being rescinded.

To me this seems like a reasonably fair compromise and so I now await the inevitable backlash about how I'm a baby-eating liberal commie pinko faggot.

[Tule]

Fighting the government with bullets is only appropriate when it's no longer possible to fight it with the ballot box and the soap box.

Thus, never. The government is not a freaking tyranny.

It's not, and may never become one.

But remember that while Germany was democratic in 1930, it had killed 12 million people of its own population by 1945.
This was not so long ago, our grandparents were alive back then.
Hell, a genocide took place in a democratic European country less than 20 years ago.

Considering how rarely rifles are used to commit murder I think they are worth having to deter a military coup, as unlikely as one may seem.

[The New One]

You wanna know what the most common weapon used in American murders is? It's this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 60_3in.jpg

You're more likely to be killed by some "other method" than a rifle (or shotgun) in the U.S.

But, of course, it's awfully handy to have an AR-15 and its 30 rifle rounds when you're about to be attacked.

[The New One]

Fighting the government with bullets is only appropriate when it's no longer possible to fight it with the ballot box and the soap box.

Thus, never. The government is not a freaking tyranny.

" Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
-Mao

[Chernoslavia]

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.

1. No let's not. They are already restricted.
2. Machine guns arent banned, like assault rifles they are restricted. Restricted as in heavily regulated.
3. You need to source this.
4. No just no. The Army doesnt use tanks to kill foot soldiers, they have infantry for that.

[Chernoslavia]

The armada? What are you refering to the navy or just all of our wepons?

The USN's air power is enough to kill any number of civilians with rifles, so both, I suppose.

What do you mean entire armada? You think every soldiers gonna shoot their own citizens without thinking ''hey what are we doing? Why?''

[Chernoslavia]

Machine guns are not banned.

Yes they are. They have been since the 20s or 30s.

And wrong again.

[Sociobiology]

Granted. But a civilian resistance to the government (and why the hell do we think the government would be doing anything worthy of armed resistence?) would still not end terribly well.

For the government perhaps.

Even if the government could keep all its fighter planes in the air and its tanks running, only infantry can hold ground.

The entire US armed forces have only about 70.000 Infantrymen. There would probably be several hundred thousand, if not millions of American gun owners willing to fight those 70.000 infantrymen (assuming they all fight for the government in the first place), take pot shots at parked airplanes at military airfields and raid supply trucks.

and just as many if not more willing to fight with them.

[Chernoslavia]

He didnt say U.S history. He ment world wide.

When in modern history did a developed government attempt to kill a huge chunk of the people and ended up being stopped by citizens with rifles?

They didnt because said government disarmed their people to do so.

[Sociobiology]

Sorry, but can an AK-47 even get through a tank? Can it even hit a fighter plane?

No.

But it can hold up the driver of the oil truck that fuels both the tanks and the fighter planes.

Everybody forgets who keeps all that fancy military equipment running.

and people forget what a strategic reserve is, or that we have lots of military bases in other countries.
It always amuses me that people just assume everyone will be on their side.

[Chernoslavia]

An all-out ban on Assault rifles is just stupid. Right now, ones currently in America are asked to be registered in a database. Not taking them away, just being registered. However there are a few things I want to see happen.

1) Close the gun show loophole.
2) Close loopholes that can make buying an illegal gun possible. (Thanks BigJimP on the MG example)
3) NO ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL BAN
4) Registration of all currently owned assault weapons from their owners.

Registration leads to eventual confiscation. So no.

[The New Sea Territory]

There is no such thing as an assault weapon.

[Sociobiology]

An all-out ban on Assault rifles is just stupid. Right now, ones currently in America are asked to be registered in a database. Not taking them away, just being registered. However there are a few things I want to see happen.

1) Close the gun show loophole.
2) Close loopholes that can make buying an illegal gun possible. (Thanks BigJimP on the MG example)
3) NO ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL BAN
4) Registration of all currently owned assault weapons from their owners.

Registration leads to eventual confiscation. So no.

yes because automobiles are banned.

[Luveria]

There is no such thing as an assault weapon.

I'll just leave this here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

[The New Sea Territory]

There is no such thing as an assault weapon.

I'll just leave this here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

It says a "political term". It does not specify any guns, other than ones Democrats feel are "not fit for civilians". The "Assault Weapon" name was invented to label any gun that leftists wanted to ban, rather than calling it the "Firearm Ban", because that has a more negative connotation.

[Chernoslavia]

Registration leads to eventual confiscation. So no.

yes because automobiles are banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... n_firearms

[Chernoslavia]

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?

But in the case of A. the militia becomes the last line of defense. And note that when people say that US soldiers wont shoot on their people, they mean that less than half will side with the rebels, and who's to say that they wont bring their weapons with them?

I think your problem is that you take the militia for untrained, tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorists when really they are just normal everyday citizens that just feel a little concern about their government. And FYI some of us are trained by former US Navy SEALS.

[Luveria]

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?

But in the case of A. the militia becomes the last line of defense. And note that when people say that US soldiers wont shoot on their people, they mean that less than half will side with the rebels, and who's to say that they wont bring their weapons with them?

I think your problem is that you take the militia for untrained, tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorists when really they are just normal everyday citizens that just feel a little concern about their government. And FYI some of us are trained by former US Navy SEALS.

Are you planning on waging war against Obama's upcoming socialist dictatorship?

[Chernoslavia]

But in the case of A. the militia becomes the last line of defense. And note that when people say that US soldiers wont shoot on their people, they mean that less than half will side with the rebels, and who's to say that they wont bring their weapons with them?

I think your problem is that you take the militia for untrained, tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorists when really they are just normal everyday citizens that just feel a little concern about their government. And FYI some of us are trained by former US Navy SEALS.

Are you planning on waging war against Obama's upcoming socialist dictatorship?

Hi strawman.

[Sociobiology]

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?

But in the case of A. the militia becomes the last line of defense. And note that when people say that US soldiers wont shoot on their people, they mean that less than half will side with the rebels, and who's to say that they wont bring their weapons with them?

I think your problem is that you take the militia for untrained, tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorists when really they are just normal everyday citizens that just feel a little concern about their government. And FYI some of us are trained by former US Navy SEALS.

with virtually no intelligence, infrastructure, or supplies.
navy seal > former navy seal
fully supplied navy seal with intel >>> former navy seal with small arms and a ham radio.
fully supplied navy seal with intel >>>>>> some yokel trained by former navy seal with small arms and a ham radio.

[Sociobiology]

yes because automobiles are banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... n_firearms

and? this proves what? That wiki is a horrible source?

[Chernoslavia]

But in the case of A. the militia becomes the last line of defense. And note that when people say that US soldiers wont shoot on their people, they mean that less than half will side with the rebels, and who's to say that they wont bring their weapons with them?

I think your problem is that you take the militia for untrained, tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorists when really they are just normal everyday citizens that just feel a little concern about their government. And FYI some of us are trained by former US Navy SEALS.

with virtually no intelligence, infrastructure, or supplies.
navy seal > former navy seal
fully supplied navy seal with intel >>>>> former navy seal with small arms and a ham radio.

Navy seals carry small arms too. Like I said your judging us based on civilian status.

[Chernoslavia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... n_firearms

and? this proves what? That wiki is a horrible source?

The article is sourced. Otherwise it would say ''citation needed''. Not my fault you refuse to look at facts.

[Chernoslavia]

But in the case of A. the militia becomes the last line of defense. And note that when people say that US soldiers wont shoot on their people, they mean that less than half will side with the rebels, and who's to say that they wont bring their weapons with them?

I think your problem is that you take the militia for untrained, tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorists when really they are just normal everyday citizens that just feel a little concern about their government. And FYI some of us are trained by former US Navy SEALS.

with virtually no intelligence, infrastructure, or supplies.
navy seal > former navy seal
fully supplied navy seal with intel >>> former navy seal with small arms and a ham radio.
fully supplied navy seal with intel >>>>>> some yokel trained by former navy seal with small arms and a ham radio.

Your not good at this are you?