White House: Reinstating 'Assault' Weapons Ban to Prevent Terrorism is Common Sense

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

No, no, no. Don't misunderstand me. I was only referring to both in the context of the 1st and 2nd Amendment examples I gave. I agree completely. We should be concerned about and committed to fully protecting ALL of our rights, even in difficult circumstances.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: SonOfThor
So you chose to ignore the hunting element of my post. Yes I have little knowledge of guns, like most people not raised around guns. I can name the standard ones you played on video games 15 years ago but that's all. You know you would be authorised a special license anyway. (Protecting agriculture, fook knows).

My point still remains valid, other than hunting (yes I know you won't call it hunting to ignore the main premise of my point) there is no need for these weapons. It's clear my knowledge is limited on model types, doesn't make the point invalid.

A RIGHT is not subject to a "needs" qualification. Who the heck are you to decide what I need?
I have a RIGHT to life, therefore I have a RIGHT to defend that life and I have a RIGHT to use the most efficient means to that defense, which is a firearm. None of those rights are supposed to be infringed.

Someone is asking why we have not had a revolution yet?
Well there are a lot of us asking that same question and training all the time for when the answer finally presents itself.

a reply to: vor78
My "assault" rifle is in 7.63x39 platform and it has put 3 deer on my kitchen table over the last 3 years. I wouldn't trade it for any other rifle. I've had it since 1991 and the funny thing is it hasn't hurt a single person. I did remove the bayonette though, I have no need for a bayonette even though it looks really cool on there. It makes the rifle heavier and rattles a bit.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: forkedtongue

originally posted by: CellDamage420

On the left a .223 hunting rifle, on the right an AR-15 "assault" rifle. Both chambered in .223. Both fire the same round, the same number of rounds, at the same muzzle velocity, with the same ballistic characteristics. Functionally identical weapons in every way, yet under the AWB one is legal one is not. Stupidity at its utmost.

And not one gun grabber will understand your point, because the black one is a full auto machine gun meant exclusively for use on a battle field, CNN told them, and everyone knows, they wouldnt lie.

There are also some very distinct differences between the two that make them two complete different firearms. Under military standards, they are not comparable.

BS, I would take either into battle!! The AR is just better as being easy to repair and maintain, a hell of a lot more parts out there for them and since the military has them the people should have them do to Interoperability in-case some group of nations ever get the stones to invade the U.S. AS WAS THE CASE BEFORE!!!!

This stupid weapons ban was in place before, it never worked and that is why they got rid of it.

If our mentally challenged ones in D.C. want to infringe on OUR rights to defend ourselves then go ahead, we will infringe on their lives pretty dam quick and hard.

The only problem we have in the U.S. is a RADICAL MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD loving government who wants to ruin this country, any way ANY how, including making up fake mass shootings and to top it off bringing Military aged Muslim radicals into our country for even more future attacks. Attacks for the BS they caused in the middle east!!

Most deer rifles in the hands of a marksman who knows rifles can make them work just as well as the best military sniper rifles as well but lets talk about something that is a lot less powerful lol.

A mentally deranged sniper could bring a city to a stand still AS IN THE D.C. SNIPER CASE!! It could have been a whole lot worse if they knew what they were doing.

Reinstating the assault weapons ban will never do anything to stop terrorist.
If they can not get assault weapons they will use shotguns and bombs or buy AKs in central America and carry them across the border the same way all the illegal drugs come in.

You can never ban bombs because there are too many chemical mixes that can be used to build them and that can be bought in any city.

I can go to a couple stores in my town and get everything i need to build a bomb.
And as a retired blaster i know how to do it without blowing my self up.

a reply to: rossacus

There is ALREADY a ban on "Assault weapons" - An assault weapon is a fully automatic military weapon, not the civilian 'lookalikes'.
In order to own a true assault weapon, a special (and expensive) federal license/permit is required, usually obtained by a collector for a special weapon, like a Thompson sub-machine gun (Tommy Gun) that will hang on a wall as a display.
There are no "assault weapons" owned by the average Joe.... only some legal semi-automatic weapons that are tricked out to LOOK like the real thing.
Just because you put racing stripes and mag wheels on a VW beetle, don't make it a Formula One race car!

So? Let them/him! Most, Real Americans, learned from Clinton's time. Do you think some Kenyan/Hawaiian is going to dictate right or wrong, to Americans? Nah! He'll throw out some "law". Which has nothing to do with right or wrong.

It will make NO difference....those set on doin harm will do harm...simple as that. Bans, etc are just wasted time by those too afraid to address real issues..

a reply to: neo96

Most people don't even knew that the term "Assault weapon" means...

NOTHING.

It is a made up term based on gun control ideas in the 80's.

AR stands for Armilite Rifle. One of the first designers of the M16 rifle.

Under this ban a AR15 was banned, but a Mini-14 was specifically list as being OK.

The difference between the two? ONLY cosmetic.

The AR15 had a pistol grip and was "evil" black.
The Mini-14 had a wood stock and most were silver stainless steel.

They BOTH work the same way, used 20/30 round mags, used the same round and had similar firing mechanisms. (IE like a Chevy 350 and a Ford 302.)

In fact given the choose of being shot with an AR15 or a 12GA at normal shooting range, I would take the AR any day of the week.

a reply to: rossacus

Because there is NO SUCH THING as an Assault Weapon.

Its a made up term and can be used for anything they want it to be used for.

You do know that the police use Mossberg 500 12GA pumps when they "Assault" you house right?

Same gun many people go deer hunting with every year. and causes more damage then an AR in mst cases.

ALSO:

You also know that a Automatic handgun is NOT Fully automatic, right?

You do know that to owe a REAL fully Automatic weapon requires you to have a number of forms signed and approved by the ATF AND pay a tax for it, right?

You know that an AR15 is NOT fully automatic, unless illegally modified, right?

You also know that adding a Pistol grip to a rifle is the same as adding nice rims to your car, right?

You know that having a 10 round magazine is not a real issue if no is shooting back at you, right?

An AR15 style rifle is no more dangerous then any other weapon. In fact I will go out on a limb here and say that most people that know would rather be shot with an AR then a 12GA in a house setting. I know I would. You would probably survive a 5.56 wound, but a 12GA buckshot...

a reply to: neo96

Yeh.

But you go so far right it becomes left, or so far left it becomes right.

The two extremes are almost identical in methods and actions. Its just the speech that changes.

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: neo96

For the record I am of the crowd that is for legalization and decriminalization of all those things mentioned. Firearms included, although would you not agree that some regulation should be instituted for the possession firearms?

Yep,

They should be checked at the door at any establishment that serves liquor and/or any other mind altering substance. A breathalyzer should be used to allow their return.

Any use of them while intoxicated that results in death should be treated as murder.

The owner; NOT the manufacture or seller; is responsible for any damages caused.

Should be 18 or older to buy/own unless supervised by an adult. (18 should be legal age for ANYTHING, not this 18/21 BS we have now.)

I would even say a mandatory class in ALL schools to teach basic safety and formalization. Even if you never want to own one it would be good to have a basic idea of how it works.

No ownership allowed while under any type of detainment or observation. IE Jail, Parole, Psychiatric or other court or self imposed ruling. Once cleared you would regain the right, unless a court ruling specifically says otherwise.


Sound like a good start for basic common sense rules?

In other words it your RIGHT until you do something stupid and lose it.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Let me preface in saying I am against all out bans when it comes to the discussion of gun control.

But wonder how many in this thread all up in arms about how bans don't work are all for the travel bans recently talked about and great and effective that would be...
Then turning to the "if we just stop one it will be worth it" logic.

Slightly different issue. but similar results.

Travel ban COULD work, but it would mean we would have to actually enforce the other laws in place and close the boarders like they should be.

Just like these shootings could be addressed if we used the laws already passed and in place.

You also have the fact that gun ownership is a RIGHT listed in the Constitution. Immigration is a PRIVILEGE grant by the US government. No one has the RIGHT to move to the US unless they are already citizens.

I'm for LEGAL immigration just as I am for gun ownership. A right is yours unless you mess it up, a privilege is yours as long as we say it is. (IE you don't have a right to a drivers license, you pass a test to get it.)

a reply to: dismanrc

How exactly do we close the boarders? I've wondered this for a while. We haves TONS of miles of coast line to the south, to the east, to the west, to the north. The Coast Guard can't keep people from sailing on rafts from Cuba to here. They can't keep all the drugs out of the country. The board patrol can't keep illegals out. Closing the boarder is impossible.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
How exactly do we close the boarders?

T-1000's and Skynet should do the trick.

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: neo96

For the record I am of the crowd that is for legalization and decriminalization of all those things mentioned. Firearms included, although would you not agree that some regulation should be instituted for the possession firearms?

Yep,

They should be checked at the door at any establishment that serves liquor and/or any other mind altering substance. A breathalyzer should be used to allow their return.

Any use of them while intoxicated that results in death should be treated as murder.

The owner; NOT the manufacture or seller; is responsible for any damages caused.

Should be 18 or older to buy/own unless supervised by an adult. (18 should be legal age for ANYTHING, not this 18/21 BS we have now.)

I would even say a mandatory class in ALL schools to teach basic safety and formalization. Even if you never want to own one it would be good to have a basic idea of how it works.

No ownership allowed while under any type of detainment or observation. IE Jail, Parole, Psychiatric or other court or self imposed ruling. Once cleared you would regain the right, unless a court ruling specifically says otherwise.

Sound like a good start for basic common sense rules?

In other words it your RIGHT until you do something stupid and lose it.

I have on a few occasions checked my gun at the door. But I would never do that with any conditions attached to its return. Failing the breathalyzer you suggested would mean leaving the gun in someone else's control overnight at the very least. I am still responsible for whatever happens involving that gun. No way in hell I leave it with people I don't know. I had one experience where I had checked a gun with management while playing in a pool tournament. I just happened to look over at the bar and saw the bartender showing my gun to a patron. That was the last time I ever checked a gun anywhere.

Only murder will be treated as such, regardless of the state of mind of the perpetrator.

If you want the owner to be held responsible how would you handle a crime that was committed while the gun was checked at a night club and the owner had no idea it even happened until the police knock his door down and arrest him?

18 is old enough provided the proper instruction has taken place.

Mandatory safety classes may or may not be a good thing in schools. However, children of parents who own firearms might benefit from something like that. It isn't necessary to tell them the parents have the weapons, only that the safety training is necessary.

Convicted felons cant own firearms at all now. Anyone on a government watch list should be prevented also. The only concern I have there is how easy it would be to put all registered gun owners on some kind of watch list just to prevent them from owning firearms. TPTB will gladly take advantage of a gift like that if they can.

a reply to: AlongCamePaul

why did you not acquire a half dozen over the last fourteen years since the ban expired

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Skynet equivalent already exists, and Boston Dynamics is putting the finishing touches on their Atlas robots, probably the closest thing now to the T-70's from T2 3-d battle across time. These were the early predecessors to the T-800.

Our robot army is here, we just need to disconnect them from their umbilical cords and figure out how to give them a self cotained power source. The solution will be in Afghanistan. We must let Syria go and keep Afghanistan.

I hope we can all have our own T-70's in the coming decades being consistent with the 2nd amendment.

The price of liberty is risk. I'm extremely liberal and do not own or desire such a weapon (or indeed any weapon.) I do not personally agree with those who do. Yet I still oppose this notion. For the same reason I oppose banning entry into the country on the basis of religion alone. Politics does not enter into it for me. The two views are not mutually exclusive.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Just my two cents. Peace.

Apparently, this latest gun control push may be going over like a lead balloon. The latest CBS/NY Times poll indicates that a majority now opposes a renewal of the assault weapons ban. Support has dropped nearly 20 points since the last time they polled the question in 2011. The argument for 'more strict' laws on sales is also down sharply just since October.

We'll need another round of poll data to make sure that this isn't an outlier, but on the surface, it appears that the Dems may have finally jumped the shark on gun control, if you'll forgive the term.