Should citizens in the United States be banned from possessing assault weapons?
No need for citizens to own such weapons.
Either you are a hunter, or a target shooter, or a collector. The modern assault rifle fills none of these roles. I own firearms and belong to the NRA. I grew up with firearms, and owned my first firearm at age 13. I think gun owners should distance themselves from this nonsense.
Posted by: AnonymousPeople kill with the help of guns
The USA has the worst record of death by shooting in the world...52 deaths in Canada last year, over 10,000 in the USA. Yes you can multiply our record ten times beacause of the population difference. Still the numbers speak for themselves!! Don't ban everything just the assault rifles with large clips!! WAKE UP USA !!!!!
Posted by: AnonymousBanning assault weapons may NOT stop these killings...
and an assault weapon wasnt used at this one. However, why should a normal citizen ever need an assault rifle? I am completely behind the 2nd amendment, but a fully automatic assault rifle? When do you ever need this to defend yourself? A semi automatic weapon works just as well! The only time you need a full-auto weapon is when you are looking to kill more than one person. If we keep assault rifles legal, why not legally allow citizens to own C-4, or a LAW rocket launcher, or other high-power explosives? Because no citizen in their right mind would use these for self defense.
If a criminal knows you can carry a gun, assault rifle or not, that is a deterrent. If the fact that you are carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not deter said criminal I highly doubt the fact that you are carrying an assault rifle will be any more of a deterrent.Posted by: AnonymousYes, because there is no reason to have them.
Unless you are being attacked by packs of wolves everyday in your home, there is no reason for you to have an assault rifle. You can not hunt with them. There is just no reason to own one, except to be up to no good. Assault rifles are made to kill humans, and that is the only purpose they serve.
Posted by: 5c0tJungThe war with England has been over for over 200 years...
Which really prompted the reason for the 2nd amendment. So let's move on to the 21st century. Today there are many more laws to protect the citizens of this country. We should fear those citizens that own assault weapons more than fearing our own government. Get over your paranoia or move out!
Posted by: AnonymousWhy do you need one?
There is no reason to have an assault weapon in your home. Period. They are used for killing mass amounts of people, not protection, not hunting, just murder. A normal hand gun cannot do the same amount of damage so quickly. There is simply no reason that a household should have one.
Posted by: AnonymousJust owning one makes it more likely to die by that gun
Adam Lanza's mother was a law abiding citizen who felt the same way most people who support the right to own a weapon that can shoot six bullets a second and fire 100 bullets in one round. She is now dead by her own guns. They served only one purpose - to kill people en masse...and they served their purpose well.
Posted by: Flan59I can no longer assume my children are safe in a "safe" school.
Please ban fully automatic assault weapons. Malls, theaters and schools are no longer safe. The real terrorists we should fear are our own crazy Americans with guns that can shoot more rounds then it takes to stop an intruder in your home. This will not infringe on the right to bear arms it infringes on the right to shoot 100 rounds without reloading at a school full of unarmed children.
Posted by: AnonymousThis isnt protection, this is expectation.
A handgun is enough to protect you and satisfies your second amendment rights. Nobody is talking about banning all guns so stop using that as an argument. Weapons for protection should never be banned because america needs to protect itself from within, but weapons for war should never be in the hands of the people because all it does is create a warzone in america that harms eachother and kills our children. Keep your firearms, but you dont need weapons of war
Posted by: CaligatioAssualt weapons are too dangerous
for idiotic people. Less dangerous guns I believe are acceptable. Just like how unintelligent people shouldn't be able to vote! You don't want the status of our country determined by people who don't even know what foreign policy means. So why should we give killing machines out to clowns! I realize damage will still be done but not at such an immense rate. Also an AK - 47 or M -16 can't stop a predator drone. If the goverment wanted to put us down that's where we would be. My heart goes out to those poor little kids but I'm sure they're somewhere better now.
Posted by: AnonymousUse fists not bullets ...
If you must defend yourself then learn to "fight"! If the United States is such a dangerous place to live, where you constantly need to be on your guard and must protect yourself ... then move! There are plenty of countries that don't allow guns and are that much safer! Think of how much money you'd save on ammunition too ...
Posted by: AnonymousThere is no need to own an assault rifle
Why do assault weapons need to be owned by American citizens? Answer is: they don't. Hunters don't mow down deer with assault rifles. Citizens don't protect their home against intruders with assault rifles. The simple fact is that if they were not available to citizens the death toll would not be nearly as high.
Posted by: AnonymousSecond amendment is for protection
Many Right-wing-nuts cite the 2nd amendment as protecting their right to weapons. The second amendment was for citizens to be able to defend themselves. Fully automatic weapons are completely useless for self defense due to the fact that if you were actually in a robbery situation you would most likely be spraying all over the place and injure your kids, wife and pets. Most automatics are assault rifles or machine guns, meaning they have enough power to punch through walls and kill your neighbors as well. The two reasons why they ACTUALLY want automatics are because they are either A: paranoid whack jobs who shouldn't have guns to begin with, or B: people who just think guns are really cool and can't bear to have their favorite,extremely dangerous toys taken away, even if it means their kids won't survive to adulthood.
Posted by: AnonymousNo need for one!
There are no circumstances outside of military combat any person would need an assault rifle! You want to kill someone, use a handgun, that's what they're for after all. Only a paranoid conspiratorial nutjob person who believes a civil war is around the corner could actually believe they would EVER need one.
Posted by: AnonymousThe negative effect gun ownership has on society vastly outweighs the benefits
"Protection" is a reason often cited by the pro-gun ownership contingent. Whether that be from attackers, or from the government themselves; it is unfathomable how people can still feel they have "a right" to own guns, considering the reoccurring damage done to individuals and society by easy access to weapons.
Unfortunately it is easier as a non-US citizen to witness the paranoia spread throughout the US by public figures, organizations, media etc. about the idea of a "right to bear arms" for protection against one's own government - which to anyone outside the US sounds frankly absurd. Yes, governments can turn into regimes/dictatorships, but look at the whole of Europe, or much of south East Asia as an example of how citizens have no need for a paranoia against their government, but still feel a control without guns. The US prides itself on being "the most advanced nations" on the planet, but it is in fact one of the most prehistoric, basing its values on a document written over 200 years ago, in what was a completely different world.
It is only by throwing off the shackles of "what has always been" and seeing the path to a more harmonious future that major revolutions have occurred; such as the abolition of slavery and the notion that the world is not flat. If the US cannot look past its inward looking, self centered laws, and in this case what is socially accepted, it can never hope to be the great nation it proclaims and forever will be a dinosaur with a society no more modern than North Korea or other frequently cited "undeveloped" nations.Posted by: Ryan88Assault guns are Useless
There would be no use unless you want to commit a crime. Use a very heavy object instead. Also if there are no guns in the first place there would be no one to attack you in the first place. Also if everyone was armed world peace could be slightly harder to achieve.
Posted by: AnonymousCitizens in the United States should be banned from possessing assault weapons as it should be for military only.
There is no reason for a citizen to have an assault weapon. They are killing machines and serve no other purpose at all. They should only be used in war situations. A common hand gun is enough for a citizen to have. You start putting these weapons in regular peoples' hands there will be mass murders from all the psychos out there. Yes they can also do it with a hand gun but an assault weapon can kill hundreds at one time.
Posted by: dadude913Assault is an aggressive behavior!
There is no reason to own an assault weapon unless you are on a SWAT team or are in a war zone in the military. An assault weapon is not used for hunting animals or birds for sport--it's purpose is to kill a lot of people in as short a period of time,as possible. I believe they should be banned and a huge fine for possessing them should be levied. Reimbursement for confiscation is OK with me--but making it illegal is the first step to getting rid of them. These types of weapons are too easily available--and are being bought by very unstable individuals. Irregardless of that, I see no reasonable reason for anyone, except for as noted above, to possess one. I am not taking away anyone's hunting rifle--but large clip assault weapons gotta go!
Posted by: AnonymousThey serve no purpose.
Nobody needs these machine guns. My God, I watched a movie the other night and the fella must have shot for 5 full minutes. He had bullets all wrapped around him just horrible. People were flying back 10 or 20 feet. Lets get them of the street. The damage he did in that movie made me scared.
Posted by: AnonymousWho needs assault rifles for safety?
An assault rifle is exactly what it sounds like. Its purpose is to kill as many people as it can; "assault them", if you say. This type of firepower is not needed for safety at all. A single gunman can be taken down with a single bullet, not 12 rounds per second. Leave this type of firepower to the military, and keep safe by having a hand gun, one meant for safety. Not destruction.
Posted by: SammiYes, it definitely should.
A person doesn't NEED an assault weapon! I personally believe that we don't need ANY guns, but since i'm sort of an extremist at times, I'm willing to compromise, and I think since we have absolutely no need for them, we should not be allowed to have them!!! The U.S. has an uncommonly high death rate by guns, and it is crazy! The second amendment was originally made so that militias would be able to form if the entire government crashed into the dirt, but since the world has changed and our government could kill us all anyway if they wanted to (no hicks with guns can stop the government from creating a dictatorship if they wanted to) so since there is nothing we would ever be able to do about it anyway, let's save lives and ban assault weapons! The US has one of the highest gun death rates, and incidentally, we also have the most guns per people in the whole freaking world. Coincidence? I think not. People think that the number of homicides would not go down if we banned assault weapons, but I beg to differ. Killing with a knife takes a lot more drive and a lot more determination than killing with a gun. Killing with poison takes a lot more intelligence and planning than killing with a gun. It is easiest to just kill a person with a gun, and a lot of prospective murderers would be daunted at having to physically drive a knife into another human being. Not all people have the stomach for that, and I believe the homicide count would definitely drop if we just banned assault weapons.
Posted by: Nyx999Assault rifles, though at this time not the weapons used in most murders, have more potential of allowing mass killings than handguns.
Assault rifles are much more powerful and can shoot many more bullets than a handgun can, therefore they can cause much more damage to others in a shorter amount of time. This, coupled with the fact that America has many more gun-related murders than any other country yearly, convinces me to say that we should simply not allow high-powered assault rifles to remain in the mixture. It's just asking for bad things to happen.
Posted by: AnonymousI agree that citizens in the United States should be banned from possessing assault weapons because they are too dangerous.
I think that citizens of the United States should be banned from possessing any assault weapons because they are dangerous. I agree that people kill, not guns, but if someone has had too much to drink or are on drugs, it can effect their judgment. Plus there would be accidents with children getting hold of them and injuring or killing themselves or someone else.
Posted by: ElianaGyes
I think an assault rifle maybe a bit excessive. I believe if you want to go hunting as a citizen then sure, grab a 30/30 or 273 or what have you, or a shotgun for duck/waterfowl, varment rifles, etc. But a citizen owning an AK-47? For what? I know how powerful those types of guns are. If you want a gun for protection, an AK isn't the way to go. If you miss your opponent, do you know how far one of those rounds will travel and at what velocity? Those rounds will go through all sorts of things, wood, cinder block, metal, and several layers of wood and sheet rock combined. In other words, if you miss someone, that round could go through mutliple dwellings. I don't think anyone out there would go hunting with an AK and using one for protection is stupid. I don't think they are necessary unless your military, specially trained, and using them during a time of war. There is no need for a 3 round burst when your big game hunting or protecting yourself. Fully automatic is just plain overkill unless your trying to "Spray" your enemy with rounds during combat.
Posted by: cradlefanYes, they should be banned
Assault weapons are made to kill. If the streets of America are filled with these weapons, the homicide rate would increase. These types of guns are used in war by the military and they have no place in people's homes. Many might argue that they are useful in self-defense, but however, if there are no guns in they first place, what do you have to protect yourself from???
Posted by: AnonymousGunned Down
GUNNED DOWN
just like that.
GUNNED DOWN
in nothing flat.
GUNNED DOWN
at school, at work,
at the library,
at the park,
on the street,
in the sanctuary
of a place of worship
or home.
GUNNED DOWN
some with others,
some alone.
GUNNED DOWN
and left dead
or never the same.
GUNNED DOWN
leaving families
and friends
with gravestones,
running their fingers
over their names.
GUNNED DOWN
GUNNED DOWN
GUNNED DOWN
(c) Phyllis Jean Green
December, 2012
N: guns don't cause violence, but they greatly exacerbate it by making it easy to kill. The increasingly popular assault variety almost guarantees that there will be multiple victims.
Rapid-fire capability has nothing to do with the sport of hunting. As for self-protection, these days, the main need is to be protected from domestic terrorists wielding assault weapons. Nothing can come of responding in kind but a blood-bath! We can't go on like this!Posted by: AnonymousCitizens should be banned from owning assault weapons!
Citizens should be banned from assault weapons because they are a danger to our society. They kill people, and almost everyday there is a new story about assaults on the news. How many rooms in a hospital are filled with people injured by assault weapons? To many! Protect the world and get rid of assault weapons!
Posted by: AnonymousAssault weapons were designed and created to kill human beings
Assault weapons were designed for the military. No private citizen has the need for this type of weapon. We have police departments and a national military presence to protect us. If Adam Lanza had not had access to the weapons he killed those children with, he could not have done the amount of damage he did. His mother had no right to keep a weapon like that in her home. She may have passed the psychological tests, but her son never would have. That is a major flaw in this process of obtaining weapons. Nancy Lanza had no need for, and should never have possessed, a military weapon that was designed to kill people.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat's the point.
Sure over oneself the individual may be sovereign, but when it comes to the possession of the means to violate the freedoms of others... that's where I guess we must draw the line. We cannot have excessive freedom. Freedom is a paradox really, it's just about where you draw the line, preferable before my freedom to kill? Yikes.
Posted by: CloudJust no more
Is it right that to this day that a student, worker, pedestrian, or any American citizen can wake up and know that this could be their last day, to be killed by a assault gun? Should a student know that there is a possibility that that something like the Newtown shooting could still easily happen at his school? It’s obvious; the answer to assault guns is “No!”
If assault weapons were banned years ago in America, these terrible happenings would not have occurred: the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, Aurora Colorado Theater shooting, the Senator Gifford shooting incident in Arizona, the Virginia Tech shooting, the Columbine High School shooting and much more. If assault weapons were banned about 10,000 lives could be saved per year.Posted by: JoeRaubYes, Are nuclear weapons legal; don't We need these too?
Why doesn't the Second Amendment just state that we can use anything we want tanks, nuclear missiles, whole armies? Because the government reserves the right to balance the rights of the people against the danger posed by wing-nuts, religious wackos, etc. We already disallow certain military items, and nobody cares. The assault weapon with high-capacity magazine should just be added to that list.
Posted by: AnonymousWho needs one?
Assault weapons are unnecessary in America. Of course there is the exception of the Mexican border, but these weapons are not needed in America by the general public. Who NEEDS an assault weapon to protect themselves? Likewise, who needs a tank or a nuclear warhead to do the same thing, or an RPG? The only people who need assault weapons are active military personnel, and those in rural areas near the Mexican border.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat Happened to Common Sense?
What Happened to Common Sense? Shame on ALL of you -- yes and no's, lefts and rights. God haters and bible thumpers. Teabaggers and Commies. Guns didn't kill those kids -- and yes they did. Video games don't make people go on shooting rampages and yes they do. All of this "group think" is remarkable and pitiful. I have been scanning this thing and no one -- not ONE of you -- has the stones to stand up and say "Maybe, just maybe, I'm not completely right here. Maybe, just maybe, there are some modifications that can be made regarding who should have firearms, what type and how much ammunition. But no, not a centrist in the group. Anyone can talk tough from the deep end of the pool when they're holding onto the side. But who among you has the strength to let go from your righteous gang and wade independently out into the middle to discuss -- intelligently and rationally -- options that might help keep massacres like this from happening again? My guess is that precious few of you can or will. So keep doing what you're all doing: Keep holding onto the side of the pool and talking tough and then we can together and do this again after the next mass killing. You're all cowards.
Posted by: mypovRight to live>Right to bear arms
Nobody needs an assault weapon period. Those that say they need to defend themselves could do so with a regular pistol. Assault weapons aren't made to defend nor to hunt animals.
When are people going to wake up and realize that guns are not the answer?
Guns are made to kill, that is their function as a tool, cars, hammers, baseball bats are all made for another purpose.Posted by: AnonymousWake up! When was the last time a gun saved your life?
Fellow Countrymen! The constitution and the 2nd amendments were written with good intentions. But when you see that it can take a life of an innocent kid (several kids) who do not even understand what a gun does, it does require a look again. I am not sure if statistics would speak in favor of guns saving lives. Even guarding a school with an armed cop will not save the lives of the little ones when the miscreant possesses an assault rifle. Where were the guns of the parents of those slain (am not asking if anyone had it...am saying if they had one) when it mattered? First we lost normal youth and elderly population to guns. We stayed quiet and kept saying.. "Aaargh.. we need our guns.. 2nd amendment..". Now it is our kids. What next? The unborn. The little ones in the womb...Would we still stay quiet? Sorry folks! I am not sure why we have become so calloused. I guess, for some it has to be the lives of their own dear ones before it would dawn on them. Maybe it would still not dawn on them. If someone is demented and has a knife in hand he/she could take the life of one or may be two. If the same person has an assault rifle, a pistol or even a country made gun the number multiplies depending on the weapon. I was once mugged at a knife point. That picture is still fresh in my mind. I consider myself to be very nimble and strong enough to overpower one person. But on that day, even if I had a gun with me, it wouldn't have helped. We are all wise enough to realize the consequences. But we wouldn't accept it... All in the name of freedom... The very word "Freedom" ought to be redefined.
Posted by: AnonymousRedneck nation...
Get some brains. I would bet my bottom dollar (and the dollar is bottom) that this assault weapon craze is far more popular in the South. There is absolutely no reason why any normal human being would require an AK47? The fact is that the smaller the brain in a rednecks head then the more chance there is, of that individual owning a weapon and committing violence. That folks says it all.
Posted by: AnonymousI need them for protection
You are a moron if you think you need them to protect your family. There are other guns that far more reliable and if u need an assault rifle to hunt why are u hunting? And if you think it to protect you from the government, then you should be pushing to make RPGs legal. Your assault rifle will do nothing against an aircraft, or tank.
Posted by: AnonymousWho Needs Rifles?
I'm not saying the United States should ban pistols and handguns, I'm saying that we need to put an end to rifles. No one possibly needs them. Take the Bushmaster rifle for example; the one that killed 20 school children in December. This could have been easily prevented if the Bushmaster didn't exist. A lot less people would have died. And no one needs a Bushmaster to shoot a deer. Assault rifles can do a lot more damage than making people happy.
Posted by: AnonymousDeath death death
We should have peace. No guns. If no one had possession of a gun then it would be less likely for someone to die. I understand if you want to protect yourself, but if you feel you really need protection then go to the police. Dont risk having a gun.
Posted by: AnonymousIf not then there should be some nuisance laws!!
I live near a now deputy who fires at cans of ammonium nitrate and fires military grade weapons with no support of the sheriff. I have tremendous anxiety. I have to be outside. I use earplugs all the time. I can hear it in the house. Even shakes the windows when the explosive is hit! He knows he can get by with it and I suffer high blood pressure, anxiety symptoms which I cannot take medicine for! My husband is an Iraqi veteran and he even is sick and tried of it. Where is the "gun" law to protect people from feeling as if they are living in a war zone just because they think they can do so!!!!
Posted by: AnonymousThey pevent the Government from establishing order
As a supporter of facism, totalitarianism and nanny-stateism, also as a registered Democrat and Obama supporter; I have to say they MUST be banned. People are not smart enough to make their own decisions and need the government to take care of them and make decisions for them. Evil nasty things like these black rifle assault weapons prevent this however and prevent progress, progress toward enlightended government control. I do believe though, that without those shoulder-things-that-go-up, they'd be less deadly.
Posted by: AnonymousWhile handguns are fine for proectiong, assault rifles are unnecessary and just bad.
too many people die from guns every year let alone day. People should not have assault riles with armor piercing bullets. I am not against handguns though because people have the choice to use them to protect themselves. There is no reason for people to have assault rifles. They are bad.
Posted by: AnonymousLet higher evolution begin.
Out of fear and a macho aura of entitlement do those who support violent means and weapons support arguments that should have be left to cavemen. No wonder as a race of beings we destroy our environment. It always surprised me that we have nothing better to do than to let our fears and mind run rampant.
Posted by: AnonymousWe don't need assault weapons to defend ourselves.
The guy in Connecticut didn't need an automatic weapon to murder 20 people, why make it even easier for people to kill large groups of individuals by allowing the possession of assault weapons? And what's the point of owning one if you're not going to war or utterly paranoid out of your mind? Just keeping them legal so you can play with them like they're your adult toys?
I wish these NRA folks would get real and admit they just love playing with their boomsticks too much to want to give up Americas easy access to things that could make an unstable man a walking killing machine.Posted by: AnonymousMass destruction weapons are for war.
Mass destruction weapons that are designed to kill a lot of people in a very short period of time. Like assault weapons, they have no business in the hands of a citizen. Citizens who possess assault weapons can be considered a danger to society because their assault weapons can fall in the wrong hands and cause destruction.
Posted by: AnonymousThey're only used to kill many people at once
These are military style weapons that should be used for war only. With these guns off the streets there ill be less mass shootings such as the ones at sandy hook and the Colorado movie theater. Enough said. I'm sick of seeing people die every day that don't deserve to.
Posted by: Anonymous“Have a hammer and you will find a nail. Have a gun and you will find a target.”
Some individuals may argue that they need guns to protect themselves, but why would they need to protect themselves if there is no possible harm in the environment? The possession of arms poses a great harm to the society. In Aurora, Colorado, 24-year-old James Holmes fired four weapons into an unsuspecting crowd during the Dark Knight premiere. During the incident, twelve people were killed and fifty nine were injured. In Newtown, Connecticut, 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot twenty children and six adults from Sandy Hook Elementary School. Without the possession of guns, these situations could not have occurred.
The possession of firearms in America should only be left on the legal people. These individuals include military and occasionally the police.Posted by: AnonymousYes we can have the right to feel safe!
I believe yes, citizens have the right to feel safe in this world, and free. How can we do that by going at war or possessing dangerous weapons? Make peace, keep united and let families, teachers and citizens of this world have the right to feel safe! Because people's lives can be ruined by gangs violence and crime and I say take a stand! If you have a voice then use it!
Posted by: Anonymousno one should have one. there is no reason to have one
I would allow manual guns and hunting guns. You should not have one because they would blow up an animal and u could use a manuel gun for protection. And did you know people have a higher risk of suicide with automatic guns. In 1994 guns were banned and the gun death rate went wayyyyy down. So i would perffer manuel guns and hunting guns.
Posted by: AnonymousPeople use assault weapons to kill people.
We don't need assault weapons in the hands of civilians who have repeatedly used them to shoot innocent people. We cannot trust the responsible assault rifle gun owner anymore because most shooters were at one point responsible gun owners. And the "oh, we didn't know our son (or husband) could do anything like this" just goes to show how gun owners don't have a clue who in their immediate family/friend groups are capable of using their weapons for murder. Normal people fly off the handle in fits of fury and anger. We need to keep assault rifles out of the hands of normal and mentally unstable civilians because the difference between the two is often too hard to see.
Posted by: anthrogirlWhen everybody is armed, nobody is safe!
In the US you are 20 times more likely to be killed by firearms then anywhere else in the civilized World. Just look at your cousins across the northern boarder if you need confirmation. Seen from the outside (I live in Australia) you wonder what stupid idea is to sell assault weapons to the public and allow them to store thousands of rounds of ammo at home. If people want to go target shooting, let them store rifles and ammo at the range. If they want to go hunting, let them store rifles and ammo in hunting clubs. Farmers do not need assault rifles to kill vermin, they do not need to spay hundreds of bullets in few minutes. It's just lunacy.Please abandon this Far West mentality. Just in case you aren't sure, it's the year 2012, and will be soon 2013 and there isn't a civil war in the offing.
Posted by: AnonymousBring the ban back!
Half -- If not more of the people voting "NO" even have an assault rifle or plan on getting one. Civilians have no need for assault rifles unless they're crazies. Let's get real here America. Shootings will continue to happen the more you allow it to happen. Handing a crazy a assault rifle isn't helping the problem!
Posted by: AnonymousAnonymous
I don't understand the point of this entire discussion. We are ALREADY banned from owning automatic weapons. My AR-15s are semi-automatic like all the other AR-15s - no more harmful than any other hunting or target rifle. My pistols are automatic but only fire one round at a time. I'm confused.
Posted by: AnonymousPointless for Self Defense
Assault Rifles are designed for battlefield conditions. People who are concerned with defending themselves or their homes are much better served with a 12ga pump shot gun where aim is not as crucial in an emergency bump in the night type of situation. Assault rifles are primarily made for killing your enemies at 30-100 yards away and last time I checked that is called murder not self defense. Bottom line is that unless your property is more then a few acres you will never have a legitimate reason to be defending your self with an assault rifle. They are designed to do what these mass murderers are doing and it needs to stop.
Posted by: AnonymousThe only way to stop gun violence is to eliminate the guns
With so many guns in the US it is inevitable that there will be gun violence. The ONLY way to reduce gun violence is to get rid of them. However, since bearing arms is in the DNA of Americans, this will never happen. But certainly we can ban assault rifles? Besides the right to bear arms, don't we also have a responsibility to protect our children? If these weapons are being turned against our children we have to take action. I don't think it's sufficient to say that the ordinary citizen should have the right to buy whatever kind of gun they want, just make sure they don't get into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. This latest shooting proves this wrong! The guns used were legally obtained by the ordinary citizen! The time has come to take a stand. We are better off without the guns.
Posted by: AnonymousCitizens who are insisting on owning assault rifles are being selfish and insensitive.
If taking away the right to own an assault rifle keeps even one insane person from killing someone, then the ban is worth it. If you had the choice to give up your "toys" or allow someone to shoot a six year old, what would you choose? Can you deny that more of those children would be alive today if he had not had access to assault rifles? How can you be for something that might have a chance of killing a child? Yes some crazy people will still get their hands on them. But it won't be as many and will save at least some lives. Is keeping your gun worth someone losing a life? Do you care about your wants more than a life?
Posted by: Anonymousfor what purpose?
Why would anyone need an assault rifle? They are designed to do maximum damage in a minimum amount of time. You're not allowed to use them for hunting...the only other purpose is for gunning down human beings. I don't want to live in a world where I might be living next to someone with an AK-47.
Posted by: Anonymousbanning assault weapons does not equal communism
I don't equate banning assault weapons with communism. I don't understand how others opine that if we ban assault weapons, we will have a new Hitler rise. That's just too big a leap for me. I don't love our government any more than the people voting No. There are lots of problems with it. I do think that non-armed societies are a lot safer. But I know the US will never get to that advanced state because of the 2nd amendment. I'd feel more safe if I could trust that no one, nobody, had a gun. Like the UK. I don't believe the founding fathers envisioned every citizen owning an assault weapon. And I don't believe that anyone who chooses to own a gun NEEDS an assault weapon to protect their home against whomever the heck they feel afraid of. The FEAR is what is the problem.
Posted by: AnonymousOf course assault rifles should be banned.
Assault rifles are good for one thing only; killing people. They are also good at killing a lot people at once. They are not useful for self defense or hunting, which is what guns should be for. Leave assault rifles to the military. There is no reason for regular people to own these weapons.
Posted by: AnonymousSacrifice for a Sacrifice
Restricting access to certain weapons for the American people should happen only if conditions of trust and safety are met by the government.
1. If citizens are required to have restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment, then the government, to ensure their trust to the citizen, should be completely transparent in all actions in order to guarantee a government for the people, and to ensure that no secret, anti-American agendas are taking place.
A. In order to establish this condition, restrictions on government lobbying should be put in place.
1a. No person or corporation should be able to lobby government elected officials as to ensure a corrupt free Government. The government is for the many, not the one.
2a. Corporations should be stripped of person hood. They are not people, and they are not to be protected by the government as if they are. Corporations have far too much influence on our Government and policies.
B. Any actions that the government makes that directly or indirectly affects the American people should be addressed to the American people publicly outlying the reasons and the agendas of such actions (Governmental public discourse.) This information should be easily accessed by all citizens in a multimedia format (i.e. radio, news, internet) and by no means displayed in a manner that draws attention away from the message.
1b. Means to satisfy this condition should be designated, publicly aired broadcasts (i.e. The Government Channel), internet and radio. These programs should have airing dates and times made available many times until the date of the public discourse so as to ensure an awareness in the people of such events.
2b. All Governmental public discourses should have a designated means for the people hearing the message to voice their concerns and opinions with their elected officials in an open forum debate, So that the elected official of their state, who represents the people, brings up the concerns of such actions of congress and Commander and Chief.
2. If the people are to have restriction on 2nd amendment rights, then the Government elected officials should have transparency themselves so as to ensure corrupt free leaders.
A. Such transparencies should be the public wealth of all elected officials.
B. Any and all donations, or gifts, be it monetary or not, requiring them to be public record.
3. All meetings of elected officials should be publically available by all so as to ensure corrupt free conversation.
4. A program to monthly evaluate all elected officials and their "fitness to be leaders" should be created.Posted by: AnonymousPeople with Guns are the perfect killing combination.
Anyone who says guns don't kill are ignorant. Perhaps a better statement is that guns are a key ingredient for the perfect killing. For all the opponents of this here is a scenario for you. Lets put you or your loved ones in a crowed theater with a crazy person. In one we give that person a knife. In the other we give them an assault weapon with 5000 rounds of ammo. Where are you going or where are you putting your loved ones? If guns make no difference, then you should go with the crazy man with the gun. I will take my chances with the knife. Good luck. Scenario two, you want to assassinate someone who is heavily guarded. You can have a knife or an assault rifle, take your pick. if you fail, you die. Which one you taking. Get real folks, the combination of crazy people AND guns is a deadly combination. These guns were designed for one reason only, to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible, why do you think the Military use them.
Posted by: AnonymousAssasult Weapons are Murder
America has the highest homicide rate by a gun among other developed nations. While other countries have gun restrictions, America has no federal regulations banning the use of guns. (Their gun homicidal rate per 100,000 people is 3.2%) Meanwhile Canadians have to go under background checks if they would want to purchase a gun. (Their homicidal rate it 0.1%) Australia (o.1%) Norway (0.5%) Japan (0%). These are not coincidences. Assault regulations do decrease the number of deaths in mass shootings.
Posted by: AnonymousFunny Americans
Look at every other civilized nation in the world...they do just fine without guns, most Americans are just plain ignorant. It's not a matter of "safety," its a matter of owning nice "toys." I admit shooting guns is fun but that does not mean I have the right to own a .50 cal rifle in my garage to kill deer. It's sad that most people just want "heavy" arms to have fun. Just stating my opinion, I left the US to live in Europe and boy was it a breath of fresh air.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat is the need
I understand concern for 2nd amendment rights but honestly, what is the need to own an assault weapon? Were these not developed for military and law enforcement use? It takes one shot to kill game if you know what you're doing. It also takes one shot to stop an intruder. Why the need for so much firepower?
Posted by: JDG26241Yarp.
I support our 2nd amendment rights, but there is a certain extent to which they should be regulated. Most of the mass murders are caused from automatic weapons. People still have the right to bear arms, but automatic ones are completely unnecessary and dangerous. Ban assault weapons, or more people will be killed.
Posted by: AnonymousThere's no point.
There really isn't a point in owning an automatic weapon. You can kill a deer with any weapon. I would keep an eye out for the ones wanting to buy these kind of weapons. A bow, a pistol, or even a knife can "kill" animals. That's what these people are saying that they are doing with dull auto weapons. If someone broke into my house, am I going to spray with an assault rifle, possibly hitting my family members, or use a pistol, to know that I'll be more accurate with my shot, knowing my family will be safe? There is no need for an automatic weapon unless you are in some kind of armed forces.
Posted by: stefinfectionYes, it's America. NOT IRAQ!
You want to hunt? Get a shotgun or a bow. Think you need one to protect your family? MOVE! Where do you people live that you think you need assault weapons for personal protection? If a burglar breaks in...do you need multiple bullets per second?! Really? Are you mafia? A high profile rapper with beef? No? Then, please tell me why you need this in your home. Especially if you have children. Where do you keep this assault rifle? If its not locked up, CALL DYFS please, if it is locked up do you think you'll have time (upon a break in) to get it out and load it? etc? Also, Hunting is a sport, right? (I don't think do, but I won't bother those that do) anyway...its not really a sport with an automatic weapon is it?
Posted by: AnonymousYes
Amendments are not set in stone. I am a gun owner and grew up with a great respect for the tool that a firearm can be for protection, a means of survival and recreational use. I completely disagree with the argument posted with the opening line "There can't BE a debate" and I believe it is ignorant to say that amendments are set in STONE. Amendments are quite the opposite as can be seen with the amendment for prohibition in the past and then its repeal. I am in no way in support of an all out repeal of the second amendment but agree with the limitation of high capacity assault weapons. We must retain the right of owning handguns, rifles and other long barrel guns that provide us with a safeguard against tyranny, intruders, recreation and a means of living off the land if we so choose, however what use do you have for high capacity assault rifles? Our founding fathers feared foreign invasion and governmental tyranny but also had much more faith in the American moral compass that led us to build this great nation and maintain it. A nation by the people will remain in control of the people. We must have more faith in our leaders as did the founding fathers and be willing to make changes as they are needed to our constitution.
Posted by: AnonymousAmendments are not set in stone
I am a gun owner and grew up with a great respect for the tool that a firearm can be for protection, a means of survival and recreational use. I completely disagree with the argument posted with the opening line "There can't BE a debate" and I believe it is ignorant to say that amendments are set in STONE. Amendments are quite the opposite as can be seen with the amendment for prohibition in the past and then its repeal. I am in no way in support of an all out repeal of the second amendment but agree with the limitation of high capacity assault weapons. We must retain the right of owning handguns, rifles and other long barrel guns that provide us with a safeguard against tyranny, intruders, recreation and a means of living off the land if we so choose, however what use do you have for high capacity assault rifles? Our founding fathers feared foreign invasion and governmental tyranny but also had much more faith in the American moral compass that led us to build this great nation and maintain it. A nation by the people will remain in control of the people. We must have more faith in our leaders as did the founding fathers and be willing to make changes as they are needed to our constitution.
Posted by: n89Guns=Drugs
When you buy a gun, you want to shoot someone.
When you want to shoot someone, you go to a bad part of town.
When you go to a bad part of town, you'll be offered drugs.
When you're offered drugs, if you were stupid enough to buy a gun you'll buy the drugs.
When you buy the drugs, you'll take them.
Once you take the drugs, you'll be hopelessly addicted for the rest of your life and die a good for nothing druggie.Posted by: AnonymousI support Gun bans
Because gun bans make me feel safe. I feel safer knowing that a person will never go into a college or university with a gun and kill people because the "No guns allowed" signs will stop them. I feel safer because there will never be anymore high school shoot outs. Columbine was just a coincidence, what are the chances of it happening again? I feel safer knowing that only police have guns and that in case someone tries to rob my house, they won't be able to have a gun because it's against the law. All I have to do it wave my arms around and scream wildly until the cops arrive. (it works for bears) I feel safer now everywhere I go. Take away all my rights, every last one of them, just keep those icky guns away from me and make me feel safe. I also feel that hunting is no excuse to have a gun. Animals have rights!! What did the poor animal do to deserve being killed? Hunters are just mentally sick people that smell like urine and gunpowder. Come to think of it we should also ban all knives because they make me feel unsafe. Do it for the children make them feel safe, take away all their rights just make them feel safe and they will have beautiful futures in a world where we can all get along in happy harmony and where I can finally sleep next to a deer without the threat of it being shot!
Posted by: AnonymousUS citizens should not possess assault weapons as they are not subject to require one for personal defense.
US citizens should be banned from owing assault weapons because they have no practical use in sports endeavors and they are not necessary for personal protection. Law enforcement has no real way to counter attacks from assault weapons, and a large number of assault weapons in the hands of organized criminals could result in anarchy on the streets.
Posted by: ThegaXenFive shot rifles and shotguns are perfectly fine for hunters/civilians.
Five shot rifles and shotguns are perfectly fine for hunters/civilians.
Heavier weapons should be reserved for military, and special police. Heavier penalties for those that disobey the laws would be warranted. Ammunition should also be regulated along with magazine size. I am a hunter I do not need more then three in the barrel any more than that would be a bad shot, don't need to be spraying more than three bullets at your target.
Just knowing if a person like Adam Lanza didn't have access to this type of arsenal he still may have killed with a gun but the toll would be much less.Posted by: AnonymousGuns are meant to kill!
I strongly believe that guns should be banned. Assault weapons are meant to kill humans, to assault an enemy's position. The reasons people buy guns is because it makes them feel like a Navy Seal, it makes them feel tough. So, y'wanna be tough? Then BE TOUGH! There is no need to shoot a deer with a AR-15 when a shotgun will do. This is our calling. Answer it.
Posted by: AnonymousThe weapons are dangerous.
Citizens do not need assault weapons. Imagine what would happen if a child got a hold of it thinking it was a toy! Also the recent attacks on schools and younger children are a cry for a ban of assault weapons. We Americans can not be trusted with such dangerous weapons, people are killing innocents and they seemed like normal people! We can't trust anyone any longer, especially with deadly weapons. I think that it is a GREAT idea for the U.S. to ban citizens from owning assault weapons. This doesn't mean ALL guns, just most of the automatic and semi-automatic ones. I think we will be able to live with it.
Posted by: chloe.sittigThe Psychological Effects/Necessity/Constitution/Hitler/Tyranny and Reality
Assault weapons would amplify that effect of power and security that guns give you, and it is way to easy to pull the trigger, especially if the person you are standing across has a gun too. And imagine how scared you would be if you had a pistol and the other guy if holing an assault weapon? How much more likely are you to pull the trigger. You may think that doesn't happen, but like it has been mention numerous times, there are school shootings, and other just instances that come up, you may have heard about the kid that was shot by a man because he was on his lawn. Evidence shows that the two were standing and talking for a little while and they were arguing. How much more dangerous would the situation have been with assault weapons in their hands?
It is simple you do not need it, and even though the numbers are small, even if it was just one in a million lives that could be saved by outlawing assault weapons, then they should be outlawed because they are not NEEDED. Like one poster said, their is little difference in the time it takes for an assault riffle to fire automatically and you to pull the trigger, however there is a big difference in your ability as a human to hold a trigger and for you to continue pulling it on something like another human being.
Yes, it says in our constitution that we have the right to bare arms. But I promise you 19th century politicians were NOT imagining assault riffles, that's silly.
Okay, so there were a few references to Hitler and if you know anything at all about history you know that another Hitler is not going to come into control in the United States. Actually if you know anything about our government at all even just a little tiny bit, you would know that that cannot happen, no offense but I also think that those people are SEVERELY uneducated.
Tyranny, I have two points on this the first is the majority of those comments regard defending your ability to stand up against the military, you are fighting so hard to be ready to stand up and to kill another human being. I think that that is powerful, and should be thought about to more depth.
The second thing is that there is no way you are going to get every American to own an assault rifle, and even if it did happen WHICH IT IS NOT, again you know nothing about our government if you think it will, there is no way you are going to be able to defend yourself, not against our military, and like history has shown, peaceful revolutions and protests are what would be best in that situation. Plus, we have intense European support, but the whole idea is so ridiculous, as ridiculous as the world ending 2012, that I am not going to argue any farther.Posted by: e9b9hoy1Of course, they should!
IT IS ONLY THE POLICE AND THE ARMED FORCES WHO SHALL POSSESS HIGH-POWERED WEAPONS BECAUSE IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS! The citizens are not recommended to possess it because they can really use it in other destructive purposes.
Is the Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater shootings not yet enough to justify stricter gun laws?Posted by: RanelNinoGuns make killing much much easier.
Times have changed. Normal people do not use assault weapons for war, revolution, or any other justifiable causes. They use it to kill people. I agree that its not the gun that kills people. But, in the hand of psychopath, which are 1/20 people, it makes killing much easier. Say a psychopath goes around a mall with a AK-47. He will kill at least 10 people. But, if he goes around the mall with a knife he will kill at the most 10 people.
Posted by: 14leenaYes they Should
Ordinary citizens without a gun license should not be allowed to have a gun because
1) There have been numerous massacres lately in the U.S. And all have been caused by people without a gun license. The recent school massacres and cinema massacres have been caused by people without gun licenses and have been given a gun because Americans think it is "right".
2) Americans are not living in the 1700's any more and have no need to carry a gun around to protect themselves.
Posted by: Winston910Why need an assault rifle?
Sure you have a right to own it. But why own it? To go out to a shooting range and shoot it? If that's the case let the shooting range rent guns or hold them for you. A pistol is all you need for home defense. Not an arsenal that can endanger tens of people. I'f you own something just to own it then there is a problem, that much is obvious.
Posted by: AnonymousPossessing Firearms - An Unnecessary Danger
It's been a common occurrence to see the headlines peppered with articles on the latest shooting in the United States. It is the blatant and obvious truth that Americans have abused their rights on possessions of firearms and are not fit to do so. It is only right for the state to abolish the permit on citizens possessing assault weapons, as it has only been proved time and again that it is dangerous for anyone to be able to buy and possess firearms. There is no need to have a gun, and it only puts many lives in danger. Therefore, citizens in the United States should definitely be banned from possessing assault weapons.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat's the point of owning an assault rifle anyways?
Lots of people in this country think that banning assault rifles are violating the bill of rights. That's not true. The bill of rights was written during the time where people's survival depended on guns. This isn't the 1700s anymore so we don't need guns 24/7. Also I can understand for hunters with rifles but assault rifles are your common military rifle so why even allow consider having people own them.
Posted by: AnonymousAssault Rifles are designed for one thing, deadly assault.
I spent nearly 24 years in which I received periodic training on the M-16. Later on in my carrier I assisted in the training of others on the weapon at a firing range. I remember the weapons instructor during my basic military training who advised the M-16 Assault Rifle and the .223 round were designed for one thing, "killing the enemy." Innocent people, including little kids are not our enemy. Only the military and law enforcement need ARs such as the M-16s, AR-15s, AK-47s, and similar weapons with high magazine capabilities. Many of those speaking the loudest in favor of unlimited sale and possession of these weapons as patriots, failed to feel patriotic enough about their country to serve in its defense and carry one. I believe that includes Wayne Lapierre and many of the politicians in his pocket. Maybe they just had better things to do.
Posted by: AnonymousNo more weapons!
If we keep the weapons, we are not surviving for too long .
How many people have been killed with assault weapons rather than being saved with them? No weapon can protect us, why give out weapons when there are dumb people who don't know what they do? They can be drunk and do dumb things like have another massacre.Posted by: AnonymousCivilization or Savagery, which do you want?
No country can dare call itself civilized when any mentally ill individual can easily get hold of an assault rifle. Its plain common sense. Do you want to live in civilization or utter chaos. Americans are brainwashed by the military-industrial complex, the NRA and gun manufacturers, Hollywood etc to be constantly paranoid. Now we have added deadly video games that are the same thing used by the military to desensitize soldiers before they go into the killing fields, being sold to children and teenagers. On top of this the breakdown of social norms, religious customs and family structure is bringing about the collapse of society. So you have a choice Americans, wake up and smell the blood or arm yourself to the teeth and wait to die. God Bless America, you need it losers. The rest of the world doesn't need you anyway.
Posted by: AnonymousBlack Weapons For Civilians Money Maker Only
Assault rifles are a gold mine for gun manufacturers and gun stores, but most in the know will tell you they make little sense for sport or home defense when comparable to long guns, like bolt action rifles for hunting and tactical pump shotguns for home defense. These are cheaper, more reliable and more accurate for the particular mission. But knock yourself out, America. Spend your mortgage payment on one. It looks cool, right?
Posted by: AnonymousFor the argument of mentally ill and protecting one self
Right now we have the right to have guns out the wazoo, but I haven't heard a mass shooting being stopped by any of these well armed citizens. All you hear is that 3/4 of the guns owned for these shootings were legal. As a scientist the answer is easy, you do not add more of the problem to fix the problem... In a country over run with obesity no one is saying we need more fast food restaurants so obese citizens have access to salads. This is just ridiculous. Americans are so busy defending their right to have their big toys that innocent citizens are dying. You are just as much to blame for these deaths as the shooter, you are right people kill people and you are the cause.
Posted by: IcyLaws based on fear don't work
Yes, the NRA use fear as an excuse to have guns despite widespread evidence that more guns lead to more deaths. This is clearly an arms race without end, for whom the only winners will be the arms manufacturers who sell guns. The sad tragedy in Newtown showed how a fear driven gun advocate had her own gun turned against her by her own son. Are we advocating making this situation more likely to happen. This is right wing rhetoric that has no basis in common sense or reality and is a recipe for disaster. Laughably these same people would call themselves Christian.
Posted by: AnonymousRidiculous discussions
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Then, by the same argument, bombs and iads don't kill people either, so why do we not allow possession of these. And why are we opposed to other nations having them? Should I be able to protect my property by setting up a minefield around it? Should I be allowed to have bombs in my possession to protect me from governmental tyranny? Proponents of 2nd amendment rights talk about the need to be armed as equally as the military so they can take over the government. It frightens me to live in a country where people see military overthrow as the way to solve problems.
Posted by: AnonymousRespecting the Gun, not the Person
People only buy guns (if they are not hunters) because they feel weak, and imagine that gun ownership will help be make them more powerful under the premise that they can choose to use and threaten anyone. It is an omnipotent delusion that provides the fantasy.
With more dangerous or rapid fire guns, they have that ability to kill more, and faster.
People who own these weapons respect the gun, not the people who own them.
It is the mentality of the Wild West lawlessness embodied in this nation's history.
The gun is a weapon of power, not self defense. That is why it is called a weapon.
It is used as visible power to address unseen power of corruption or to take power from others.
Every weapon is, therefore, an assault weapon, used for terrorism, or for public confrontation, unless it is used for hunting in very isolated, and increasingly rare environments since mankind has overbuilt forests and animal sanctuaries.Posted by: AnonymousAssault Weapons have no place in our society
There is no reason to own assault weapons in America. There should not only be banned but confiscated and banned as well. Own all the hunting rifles and shotguns you want. When the constitution was written, we did not have assault guns or autmatic weapons. We had one shot at a time pistols and rifles. I do not believe that our Forefathers could have envision the weaponry used today.
Posted by: AnonymousAssault weapons are for mass killings only!
Each town in the United States should go to every gun store and see who bought assault weapons, check them out to see what the purpose was for their purchase. Then take the weapon away and destroy it! Those suspected of owning illegal weapons should be searched and arrested. Surely the FBI must be aware of those who own these types of weapons. My unrealistic wish is that every type of gun on this planet would just disappear!
Posted by: AnonymousAssault weapons are the problem not the sollution to a persons safety!
Assault weapons do nothing but kill alot of people quickly! So you like to go to a shooting range and shoot you assault riffle, good for you; find a new hobby! because we have a serious problem with innocent people getting killed by them. Other things that do not kill massive amounts of people are illegal, like a healing herbal plant that people have a hard time accepting, and it doesn't kill people; it heals people. But on the other hand we have to see carnage day after day on TV from assault weapons and people cry foul at the thought of them being banned because it infringes on their rights? This country and it's people are truly messed up!
Posted by: AnonymousAssault weapons for trained personnel only
Military and police only, these weapons were not designed for your average homeowner who may have unstable family members. The military locks these weapons up on base, they do not allow soldiers to take them home with them, they realize how dangerous they are if they get into the wrong hands.
Posted by: AnonymousGun owners are small-minded
"The constitution is not a suicide pact." -Abraham Lincoln. Legal gun owners and their children are killing people. Time to make their "hobby" illegal. Ammunition needs to be micro-engraved. If a bullet registered to you ends up in a human being ever, you should go to jail for a minimum sentence of 40 years. If you own a gun keep it locked in a secure real gun safe.
Posted by: AnonymousNo more assault rifles and hand guns.
Its clear that those who have these guns legally do not all have the knowledge on how to store them safe. Yes, guns should not be illegal but guns like hand guns and assault rifles are for one purpose. If you have these guns and are of sound mind then take care of them right. Prove that you know how to do so. Show that you have an approved cabinet, prove you keep ammo separate, prove you keep them from all others, even your family.
Posted by: AnonymousShooting in Connecticut
The second ammendment was instituted by the founding fathers to protect the right of citizens to overthrow a tyrant that would possibly take over the U.S. government, not to protect the right to hunt animals. Today the concept that citizens with a few weapons would be able to successfully rebel against a government that has Blackhawk helicopters, thousands of well trained and seriously armed troops, missiles and nuclear weapons is patently absurd. The right to hunt wil not be adversely influenced by an automatic weapons and handguns ban. America should stop fantasizing about liberty-loving patriots who have a right to own any number of deadly weapons to defend their families and start thinking about the deranged individuals who cannot get access to mental health care but who can purchase any combat weapon on the internet. If our so-called patriots want to protect their families they need to lose their profound and sickly obsessive love of guns and foster a true love for human life.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat the hell are assault weapons good for?
Are you going deer hunting with a weapon that blasts that deer to kingdom come ? How much of that deer will be left to bring back home? So you say I might need to blow a burglar to smithereens if he breaks in my house and threatens my family. What a mess to clean up the brains splattered your bullet riddled walls and hope one of your family members wasn't suddenly in the line of fire or a friend living next door came over to help only because you needed protection that included fifty rounds spraying out of a gun out all at once. So answer me now if this is not what you need that assault weapon for , then what?
Posted by: FeudalismDanger and irrelevant
I believe guns MUST be banned in the United States of America as soon as possible! This is because it is a danger to everyone and anyone could strike at any time! For instance, the innocent children that died at an American school from a gun shooting. I believe that guns aren't necessary for anyone and that they aren't needed. Only police and anyone else who is SUPPOSED to have a gun for their job should be able to be in possession of a gun. Another horrible attack was in the movie cinema and whilst watching Batman, a horrible person was in posession of a gun and he killed for no reason whatsoever. I strongly disagree in any place in the world for guns to be legalised and that guns should and must be banned in America. The world would be a better place if there weren't horrific people on a mission to kill everyone as guns can fall into the wrong hands.
Posted by: AlyssajaydeWhat is the point?
Why should any person need as assault weapon? They are made to KILL PEOPLE. That is their sole purpose. I think it's fine to have a pistol or a rifle and I enjoy target shooting, but ASSAULT WEAPONS FOR KILLING PEOPLE? NO, NO, NO. How many innocent people (including CHILDREN) have to die before something is done?
Posted by: AnonymousProtect our Children
No civilian needs a weapon that can kill in mass and not even have to reload. My heart is broken, and I'm angry that it is so easy for mentally unstable people to get their hands on these weapons. Let's stop making it easy for them. Could anyone tell how I can help?
Posted by: AnonymousSenceless killing
I think all the school massacres that have been in the states recently and not to mention the gang shootings are a clear sign that things are getting out of hand in the States, I mean the mere fact that you can buy fully automatic weapons designed for the military is just insane.
Posted by: AnonymousWhen are we going to open our eyes and minds?
Citizens should be banned and manufacturers should be shut down. How many more Newtown, CT's need to happen? How many more families shattered? We need to step up and take the tough steps to reduce tragic and unnecessary killings. Why, why is this even a question? We keep saying no and keep losing lives.
Posted by: pvptPeople with weapons!
Those supporting the right to bear arms say that weapons do not kill, but people do. However, evidence suggests that people without weapons cannot go on a murder spree -- people with weapons do. Let us keep weapons and people away from each other.
As far as defending ourselves go -- let us reduce the need for defending ourselves, and if needed let us behave like a civilized country -- where the job of defending us is left with police officers trained in the use of guns.Posted by: AnonymousIts time for us to get stronger on control of guns than those people who refuse to allow reasonable limits
When 20 children in CT are mowed down by a lunatic then there is no more time for us to be liberal softies on Gun Control. Recreational use of guns for sport may be understandable---but if you shot deer or birds with assault rifles or automatic guns you would be in serious trouble with sports minded people. NO-ONE should EVER be allowed to own weapons that can do the same to people. We must insist NOW in every legislature and government office that no one can own a gun without extensive regulation---no gun sales should be allowed at shows or between private individuals without going through a police or other license transfer process---you can't transfer use of a car without this---No Way you should be ale to do it for a Gun. And NO-One in this nation should be allowed an assault weapon under any circumstances if they are not a soldier or a peace officer. If we don't see initiatives on these immediately, large numbers of us will commence petitioning for a Constitutional Amendment to repeal and modify the Second Amendment immediately.
-Angry In CT-Posted by: AnonymousThat increases the danger that stupid people will get assault weapons
theres going to be stupid people out there that want assault weapons just to mess around and thats how other people will get hurt. and then there will be insane people that will go and shoot a bunch of people like that one guy did at the movie theator and think of how many more things like that would happen if people were allowed to have assault weapons
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are bad
Guns are bad because they force people to hurt children and small animals.
Posted by: AnonymousCitizens should possess the right to bear arms but not assault weapons.
Having the right to own a gun is necessary for protection. However, assault weapons are used for mass killings and war. These weapons should only be available to the army, not everyday American citizens.
Posted by: emotopiwahI think weapons are bad thing to have because they cause death an many people get killed for no reason.
Many people have guns and when people get in arguments sometimes, they backlash and decide to kill people over dumb things. Weapons are for the law and they could be used by them to control people that are going insane and they are the protectors of society not the citizens that may flip out and kill everyone.
Posted by: waffletimeAssault weapons should be banned because they have no legitimate use other than doing serious harm.
Assault weapons should be banned because they do not have any legitimate use other than doing serious damage when they are used to harm people. Assault rifles are not useful for hunting or recreational shooting such as target practice. They are most useful for war or for committing crimes. Plus allowing the sale of assault weapons allows for criminals and others to arm themselves and be able to out gun police and civil authorities. I do not believe that the right to bear arms means that there should not be any limitations on the use of weapons or the type of weapons that a person is allowed to own. If we have legalized assault weapons why not legalize bazooka's, hand grenades, and machine guns.
Posted by: TasticBranThey have no purpose other than to kill
We are living in a civilized society; no matter how imperfect, law enforcement is there to protect the citizens, hence their right to bear arms. This is not Wild West. Only way the balance is achieved; for every one gun owner, the rest has to own one as well tantamount in its destructive power. And how do we envision such a society? Pretty scary I think. Having a deadly weapon at one's finger tip means the more likelihood of its use when one feels threatened by bodily harm though not necessarily life threatening. Human judgment can be clouded by a lot of issues. Our priorities are so warped. Should protecting our children take precedence over gun enthusiasts who derive vicarious thrill from owning such a destructive weapon for no other reason than to admire it in a glass case? I’m assuming no sane person is expecting to use it for massacre. No matter how responsible a person; first of all, we’re all fallible, secondly, no one can predict where such weapon may end up; finally, I wouldn’t want someone in my neighborhood, no matter how responsible, playing with an atom bomb.
Posted by: AnonymousYes ban them!
I don't believe there is one exact answer the question of what types of weapons should be legal but, banning assault weapons is a step in the right direction. Other types of weapons should be sufficient for home protection, hunting and target practice. When the constitution was written, there weren't any assault weapons. The reason they were created were for the military, not every day citizens.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat can you do with AW's that you can't with a handgun?
No one is saying you can't have your handguns or other guns. You can't have these weapons, that were obviously made to do kill A LOT of things QUICKLY. Someone breaks into your house? Do you really need to pump them full of 10 bullets? No. Handguns and others are completely adequate. This argument that banning assault weapons leads to government oppression is moronic or that the government is taking away our power to revolt. The day that things get as bad in the US as they are in Syria, is the day I jump off a 50 story building. I have not heard one educated argument that's pro-assault weapons. You can still hunt, practice shooting, and protect yourself. But if a law passes, that in reality bans assault rifles, you make it VERY difficult for sick people to do these things.
Posted by: AnonymousI know no-one who owns a gun
And I'm confident everybody I know doesn't know anybody else who owns a gun. Why? Because I live in the UK where firearm-related deaths are three percent that in the US and guns simply don't have a place in society. Guns do not equate to freedom as proven by most of the rest of the world outside the US, and the argument that they are for self-defense is simply laughable. America is looking pretty stupid to the rest of the world right now.
Posted by: AnonymousBanning assault weapons does not violate the 2nd amendment - get a grip!
I have no problem with the 2nd amendment and the right of our people to own a gun for self protection, hunting or target practice. This does not, however, mean that military-style assault weapons with the capacity to shoot 100's of bullets in minutes was ever part of this intent. There is no reason that the average citizen needs to own one of these weapons and again...just because it is possible to own one, does not mean it should be allowed. It's possible to own a lion in an apartment and call it a kitty, but it's still a bad idea and there are rules against it! If you want to hunt, fine. If you want a pistol to deter someone from harming you, fine. This is not the same thing and these weapons were never intended for recreational use by design. They were intended to be able to kill a lot of people in a short time and that's it.
Posted by: AnonymousHunters Against Assault Weapons
Hunters are not always gun lovers, they love to hunt. In fact the majority of truly serious hunters I know think that the assault weapons ban should be reinstated. They are as worried as anyone about the atrocities being committed with assault weapons and large ammunition clips. They have no use for these weapons. Rural America has long and strong tradition of hunting and it is rare that a person raised hunting and aware of the power of a high powered weapon would ever consider raising one against another human. I believe that the great majority of real hunters support a assault weapons ban.
Posted by: KarlWake up Americans!
Although I agree that 'guns don't kill people but people do,' I think there is no NEED for guns at all. Self-protection is a crappy reason, if firearms were banned all together, you wouldn't need to fear a gun being pointed at your head. As if knife related murders aren't horrifying enough. In some countries, firearms are completely banned and the security in those countries are MUCH higher than in America.
Posted by: AnonymousIt should be a start
My family hunts. We depend on deer meat to afford the growing cost of meat. We don't need to continually fire 6 or 7 rounds at a deer. We own one shot rifles and shotguns only and only 1 gun for each hunter. Why would anyone need more? If you need to shoot more then once when hunting, then you need to practice. I honestly don't understand why people collect and believe that guns that are made, lets face it, to kill people, are worth having around.
Posted by: AnonymousAll criminals are not created equal.
The argument that if we outlaw assault weapons only outlaws will have assault weapons carries no water. The criminals that have been committing these mass murders have not been gang bangers or drug dealers. They have almost all been middle class young people with no prior history of violence that have acquired these weapons legally. Had we banned assault weapons, where exactly would James Holmes have acquired one? The black market? I hate to break it to you, but he black market is not an evil Walmart where one can purchase illegal goods. What criminal contacts would a 24 year old neuroscience student have that would provide him the means illegal high caliber weapons? None. Sure, it wouldn't stop all gun crime, but if we were to outlaw assault weapons, I truly believe we would see a dramatic decrease in mass shootings.
Posted by: AnonymousLet's see how your guns do against atom bombs and chemical weapons.
Keep your handguns and hunting rifles if you must, but stop living in a fantasy world in which your AR-15 is keeping the tyrannical government in check. If the government decided to go full 1984 tomorrow (something that simply isn't going to happen), do you think you are going to be able to fight back using your precious guns? If they wanted to they could destroy your entire city from across the planet. Go ask the people of Japan how much a difference a few civilian owned assault rifles back in '45.
The fact is, civilian assault weapons are doing far more harm than good.Posted by: AnonymousAnother Newtown, Conneticut incident could happen
I think assault weapons should be banned because of what happened in Newtown. The man who walked into Sandy Creek Elementary was carrying huge assault rifles into the school and killed 26 people including the principle of the school, his mom and many young children. The children who did survive will have a very tough time recovering from war. Do you really want another incident to happen?
Posted by: ryan.osterman64Cars and liquor aren't guns
People often make the argument that cars and liquor kill more people than guns. However they aren't designed to kill. The one and only purpose for a gun is to kill. That's what they were designed to do.
There's no reason to own an assault rifle or large round clip except to kill lots of people easily and effectively.Posted by: AnonymousWhy does anyone need an assault rifle?
Americans live in a country where they are protected by one of the strongest armed forces in the world so they don't need them in case of attack. There are other alternatives for hunting if you used one for that reason. For home defense you can use a shotgun or pistol instead. Assault rifles were designed for the military with the sole intent of it being used to kill. Now why should any person have access to such a thing? There is no genuine reason at all. Look how many legally bought ones are used in killings, now remove the rifle and you may have saved lives. Gun control does work if done properly however most Americans have proven they would rather keep their rifles than have school safe.
Posted by: AnonymousWhy would you need an assault rifle to defend yourself?
In most developed Nations around the world, there is no need for everyday citizens to own an assault rifles or the right to bear arms. High calabre assault rifles should stay with the military only. Why would you need to use an assualt rifle? If you were in a situation, an assault rifle would mean an instant kill. I feel sorry for American citizens, the fact that you feel the need to carry arms in the first place. Very very sad heaven help you all. Ban the Assault rifles once and for all
Posted by: AnonymousLegally held guns are still available for misuse
As the Sandy Hook killings showed us even legally held weapons can used - by their owners or others with access to them - against the public interest. While there is risk that any legally held weapons the risk for assault weapons and any weapons with large capacity magazines being used for crazy/dangerous purposes remains too high to tolerate.
It appears that gun possession supporters don't bother to see that the statistics in the United States do not reflect those in other "civilized countries". Even Switzerland, where all males up to age 45 are required to have weapons at their homes, has a far better gun homicide rate than does the United States.Posted by: AnonymousYoure right, nobody NEEDs assault weapons
A semi auto 12 gauge shotgun with an 6 round tube or 10 rnd detachable magazine or rotating tube magazine would cause an even more disgusting results in the hands of a killer. 25 rounds can fit into one of your cargo pockets and they are also used by police and military as well as MOST hunters and home defending citizens. I would really rather be shot by a .223 cal from an AR 15 than a shotgun as you can't really repair a shotgun wound and they are horrific! You could spray 9 .30 cal balls of steel shot in one pull of the trigger and pull the trigger up to 10 times before reloading (which is fast) that's like 90 bullets in 8 seconds... To say nothing of rifled slugs...Scary huh, you bet.
So lets ban those too!
A person with any garden variety pistol using oh I dunno, as many 10 round mags as he can carry can do just as much damage and reload in about 2 seconds at close range as a person with an AW as well, what's the difference if they get 5 less kills when the number of dead is 30?
Lets not forget hunting rifles!
Any old single shot bolt action hunting rifle worth a crap can put down a deer... Usually much bigger game though...A 30-06 or 30 aught six is very common, one shot will drop almost in place and kill a huge animal trying to run for its life, snipers use similar rounds. They often have 5 round magazines, many now have detachable 10's it's disgusting to think what that type of round will do to the feeble human body, and what range they have... Ask Dr. King and President Kennedy.
The point is they all have their advantages of killing and that it why all of the above are on the battlefield. If I dont have an assault weapon I may not be able to fight off tyranny as well, but someone could surely get a higher body count than 30 with any of the above, so what's the point of giving up more rights that I will never get back for a non effective feel good knee jerk reaction.
Ps brace yourselves because next year, and the year after that, and the year after that there will be mass violence no matter what you do. Take the assault weapons, it won't stop anythingPosted by: AnonymousOf course.
Your AR-whatever will not protect you from a tyrannical government; the US can take you down with impunity if they so choose. Further, assault weapons are unnecessary, and have no legitimate civilian use. In the wrong hands, they're simply capable of far too much destruction to be legal. Sorry, gun nuts, your arguments are moot; there truly is no good reason to possess them.
Posted by: AnonymousIf you're so afraid of the government, why are you still here?
Firearms should only be for home defense, hunting, and target practice. The arguments that assault weapons protect us from tyranny are based on fear and ignorance.
I find it interesting that those who will fight for their constitutional rights to bear arms are the same folks who fear the institutions the constitution created.
They claim to love America, yet fear the government enough to arm themselves to the teeth to protect themselves from it.
I don't get it.Posted by: Anonymousenough!
If this guy in Connecticut had to reload he could've been taken down physically by others.
Enough of fear mongers who think the government is coming against them so they need these kind of weapons.
Enough-I don't want to hear any more outlandish arguments on owning weapons like those used at that school.Posted by: Anonymouslets get serious
If banning assault weapons saves one person it's worth it! Then by the same token we should ban alcohol which kills more people than guns, pools which killed more children this year than guns, salt, cigarettes, etc. etc. etc.
Laws only work if people are going to follow them. The majority will, but criminals will not. Lets not punish the honest law abiding citizen lets get tough on crime and stop letting gang members out of prison due to needing space and cost. Lets get serious on drinking and driving. It's not illegal to have mental health but it should be illegal how insurance will only pay for minimal help.Posted by: AnonymousI have a safe chock full of guns.
Paranoia and fear are no substitute for common sense. You want to shoot assault rifles, join the Army. You want to hunt or protect your home, buy a rifle and a pistol. If you think there will ever be a day in which you can organize a defense against the federal govt, your dreaming. The way to rebel against a govt you don't like is to organize and become a part of it to change it from the within.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat Tyranny?
Numerous people seem to be arguing that assault weapons are necessary to fight off tyranny. What Tyranny? If somehow the United States government decides to embrace dictatorship, armed civilians with assault rifles will be absolutely no match. The same goes for an invading power (which can almost never happen due to Americas military capabilities), how would untrained civilians stand against an organised military force?
The argument that homes need to be protected is also flawed, because you do not need deadly force to protect your house! A baseball bat, if your inclined to violence will do, or a small handgun (which I still believe should be outlawed), unless you think your a criminal and expect to have the FBI kicking your door down. A high powered assault rifle also has quite a kick, so unless you want your wife's brains splattered on a wall, its a terrible idea.
To reiterate, what Tyranny? No Tyrannical regime has existed in a developed western country since the 40s. This idea of a tyrannical takeover is ridiculous not only due to its improbability, but also due to how useless such weapons would be in untrained hands in the (unlikely) event of such a takeover.Posted by: slug567Unnecessary
Assault weapons are completely unnecessary. They can be easily converted into an automatic weapon and would have no other use. Hunting animals is not a valid excuse for assault weapons. That is what deer rifles are used for. The only group that would use assault weapons would be militant groups that would try to overthrow the government and cause anarchy.
Posted by: Stumpy13Want over need
The only reason why civilians want to keep assault rifles is because they are fun to shoot, people that own assault riffles take them to shooting ranges and have fun shooting them, WHO Actually needs an assault rifle to protect their homes like there are people constantly trying to get in your home it is completely unnecessary. trigger happy civilans only want to keep their assault rifles for fun
Posted by: AnonymousAssault Weapons Not Needed
I fully support the ban for assault weapons because without them the amount of mass shootings will go down dramatically. In cases like at Sandy Hook, if the shooter was not allowed to have an assault weapon, then there would not be so many people dead. Also, assault weapons are not needed for any activities. You do not use it for hunting and there are other weapons that can be used for that. Getting rid of them is NOT going to hurt ANYONE. If anything, it will only help the cause. Why do we need them if they are not used for anything other that dangerous crimes? Getting rid of these weapons is worth a shot at making the United States a safer place.
Posted by: AnonymousThere is no need for citizens to have Assault Rifles
I prefer the ban of assault rifles, it's not like we legitimately hunt with them. We citizens dont need to protect our country considering we have a military to do that for us citizens. Besides, what's wrong with using a shotgun or handgun to protect yourself even if the need arises?
Posted by: AnonymousI believe they should be banned because they end up in the wrong hands for the wrong reasons.
While many argue that if someone really wanted to kill another person, they would simply use a common household item instead. This may be true, but what is the point of having a murder weapon? Assault rifles are designed to murder. Not scare away, not incapacitate. They're designed to murder. The common saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," is somewhat true, but that doesn't mean that assault rifles don't help a murderer achieve his goal...
Posted by: Anonymouswhat is for citizens to possess critical weapons?
As much time's gone, American media revealed many accidents related to the weapons.
Plural cases covering up the weapons accidents help us to consider to ban the right of gaining and possessing guns.
By illegalizing guns privilege on the American citizens, we all people can be free from the threats of shooting by anonymous person you don't know who he isPosted by: thignerAssault weapons are for the military, not the citizens.
Save the assault rifles for the professionals. The citizens shouldn't be allowed to own an assault weapon. Pistols are just fine for protection, and the person who sells the pistol must have it approved by the police and must run a background check on the person buying the gun. Shot guns should be the same way.
Posted by: AnonymousThe requirements of the 2nd Amendment, within the definitions of "well regulated" and "militia" if not met, impact the right of individual gun ownership.
The use of the terms "well regulated" and "militia", inherently and by definition, mandate a requirement from individuals that, if not in compliance, impact the individuals right to bear arms. The collective right, empowering those citizens that meet the criterion of "well regulated" and "militia" to bear arms, would still protect the individual not in compliance from a tyrannical government from threatening the "security of a free state."
Posted by: JohnnyAIt is safer for everyone.
Many countries already do so, and have much lower crime rates. Korea is a great example- while there is still violent crime, the lack of access to guns means fewer accidents, fewer young people getting into trouble, fewer mistakes with officials. Having the right to kill someone is NOT a right you should have, and obviously these people don't deserve it.
Posted by: AnonymousThere. is. no. use.
If you want to self-defend, use a handgun, not something meant to shred somebody to pieces. Suppose you shoot an innocent person by mistake at night or in a panic, etc. If shot by a handgun they would have a greater chance of simply being injured instead of drilled with bullets. Likewise it would debilitate an intruder. Some argue against "if it saves one, it's worth it" by saying "then why don't we ban pools? People drown there, and that would save some too" - but there's a difference. Pools are designed for people to swim. Swimming is a natural thing we can do that millions do every day. And pretty much all of those who get in the water get out. Guns are designed solely to murder, and few who face a gun get out.
Posted by: AnonymousPOINTLESS
I support our 2nd ammendment rights, but there is a certain extent to which they should be regulated. Most of the mass murders are caused from automatic weapons. People still have the right to bear arms, but automatic ones are completely unnecessary and dangerous. Ban assault weapons, or more people will be killed.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns kill people
Guns kill people all around the U.S. Stronger laws prohibiting assault rifles will help reduce the crime rates in cites like Chicago and New York. Every day in one of these cities, someone is shot and killed. Police do as much as they can, but crime rates keep going up due to the high availability of assault rifles.
Posted by: AnonymousNot at all
Glad I don't live in America with gun-toting hooligans. Why is it that people in the US feel like they need to own guns? To protect themselves? Britain has a ban on guns, less than 50 gun murders. Switzerland has the highest gun ownership in the world (I believe), lowest crime rate in the world. So this "protects ourselves" is irrelevant as it really differs from country to country. It's just America that's messed up. America has extremely high gun ownership already (89 guns to 100 citizens) yet you have the highest gun crime of any developed country. How are those guns working in defending yourselves? Don't tell me that the mentally ill caused all 8000 gun murders in America on average every year. It's something about American culture, so adding more guns to the mix won't help at all.
Posted by: ishallannoyyoCan I own a biological weapon?
I can't own some things because the danger they pose to society is too great compared to the potential (and often fantastical) benefits.
Keep the handguns and muskets that you need to defend yourself (or accidentally shoot your kid when they return home late one night). But you really don't need the ability to shred humans (including 1st graders). You just don't.
And the argument that I need an AR-15 for when the government takes over is the most idiotic argument. The government has already taken over, and if you think you will stand your ground when the US Marines come or you in a helicopter gunship, uhh, good luck.Posted by: AnonymousThe Need vs. The Want
Since it has been proven that the Sandy Hook shooter didn't actually use an assault rifle during the shootings (rather he had one in his car) opponents of the assault rifle ban have been jumping up and down with glee to show that one shooting spree had nothing to do with assault rifles. Therefore, they don't see a ban as necessary. Yet when asked why they need to own assault rifles, they say; "because its my second amendment right!" When asked to clarify once again what they would use an assault rifle for the response is; "whatever I want, it's my second amendment right." Since when has an argument ever been won with the simple answer of "because I said so?" It might have worked for your parents when you were being grounded but it certainly isn't going to work for this subject. The second amendment argument is invalid with the fact that it is currently illegal to own a nuclear warhead or rocket launcher. Why isn't the NRA crying foul about that? All I want is for someone to raise a valid argument detailing why they need an assault rifle and then I can take the matter under advisement and better understand their point of view.
Posted by: AnonymousThe 2nd amendment doesn't specify automatics
People do not need weapons that were designed to kill the maximum amount people with the minimum time and effort.
Hunting? Good for you! Use a bolt action repeater or a double barrel shotgun. Home protection? If you must. Have a revolver that holds 6 or 8 shots.
The argument that guns don't kill people is ridiculous. Sure the intent has to be there but guns make it a hell of a lot easier. I hear the argument that you can kill someone with a bat. Yeah but I bet your arm would start to get tired after the 4th or 5th shopper in the mall.Posted by: AnonymousYes, there is no legit reason to own an assault weapon.
There is, and I quote "No legitimate reason to own an assault weapon in the united states of america" Gun nuts are complaining about them losing guns, about the reform, and about "Guns don't kill people" BullSh*t they don't. What are guns? "A weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force." And are guns dangerous in any way? "Guns are dangerous for everyone" Okay and what if a dangerous person got a hold of such a dangerous weapon? "Then both the person an the gun are very dangerous" Therefore whether you gun nuts like it or not, GUNS ARE DANGEROUS.
Posted by: BurningSnoManAssault weapons are not needed
I can not see any reason why a person should own an assualt rifle. I can perhaps understand a hunting rifle for hunting or a pistol for a sense of security and for protection. Perhaps banning assault rifles is un-constitutional but the founding fathers were referring to swords and old rifles. Not fully automatic assault rifles, what possible reason could there be to own one besides for recreation. Is your recreation worth a few dozen lives every year
Posted by: LangylangAssault weapons should be banned.
The Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms, or in modern terms, own guns, right?
Well yes, it does, and that is not what we are trying to take away. When the 2nd Amendment was written, our country had no formalized form of protection such as police or military to protect us from threats more powerful then us, such as British Invaders and Native Americans, and since we had no type of police force, we had to allow everyone to be military, and we only organized militias out of need. Assault Weapons not only did not exist then, so really the 2nd Amendment doesn't truly apply to them, and upon that, since we were in a time where citizens were soldiers, MAYBE we would have used them then if they existed, because then, everyone was in our "army", and we had to fight lots of enemies. Imagine this: In the movie Die Hard, the main hero, John McLane, only has a handgun, and must fight heavily armed terrorists. Naturally, when he kills one, he takes their gun because it is better, and it will better aid him in victory. Seeing as America or John McLane, were heavily outnumbered, we had to allow citizens to possess heavy duty weaponry, or take more powerful guns, so that we could defeat a more powerful enemy that outnumbered us, like Britain or the Terrorists. Once more established, there may have been some changes to the Second Amendment, but although troubles with Britain were ended, we were now expanding westward, and since it was all wilderness controlled by mostly hostile Native Americans, Settlers needed powerful weaponry for defense. By the time these events ended, most members of our government were out of office, and either we had more important things needing attention or we did not want to distort the Constitution. It's understood that people have a right to own guns, but we are allowed to own them for hunting and self defense. Now, in hunting, unless I am wrong, it generally takes the sport out of Hunting to use an Automatic Weapon as you can follow your prey as you shoot, and not even aim, making it easy. For self defense, it's understandable to have a handgun, shotgun, or rifle, because by today's standards we generally only need to defend ourselves from those who break into our houses or assault us on the street, so usually you only need to be able to return fire in emergency. Assault weapons are needed to fight highly dangerous felons, terrorists, armies and others of high danger by police and military. I am assuming most of us don't fight these types of people on regular basis, right? Even if citizens were to own assault weapons, should everyone own them? When people say yes to this, I can't believe them. Should Children be allowed to own them? Should Murderers be allowed to? Mentally unstable people? Suicidal people? Addicts? If people got them, how safe would your children be?Posted by: AnonymousYes, assault weapons should most definitely be banned!
In countries with strict gun laws there are less than half as many deaths as in the United States. Background checks can only do so much! If one person buys an assault weapon and passes the background check, who's to say that weapon won't be stolen by someone mentally unstable or looking to cause crimes. There is no need for everyday citizens to have assault weapons lying around. It's like asking for a tragedy to happen.
Posted by: AnonymousSecond amendment is for protection
Many Right-wing nuts cite the 2nd amendment as protecting their right to weapons. The second amendment was for citizens to be able to defend themselves. Fully automatic weapons are completely useless for self defense due to the fact that if you were actually in a robbery situation you would most likely be spraying all over the place and injure your kids, wife and pets. Most automatics are assault rifles or machine guns, meaning they have enough power to punch through walls and kill your neighbors as well. The two reasons why they ACTUALLY want automatics are because they are either A: paranoid whack jobs who shouldn't have guns to begin with, or B: people who just think guns are really cool and can't bear to have their favorite,extremely dangerous toys taken away, even if it means their kids won't survive to adulthood.
Posted by: AnonymousAssault rifles are made for military use.
I can't see that there is any reason for a normal person to have an assault rifle. The risks of having them in your home are bigger than the possible protection they might give you one day. I really don't know what else to say about that, if anyone would like to argue a reason for it I would be more than willing to hear it. But I doubt I would accept it.
Posted by: JonayGuns are tools for killing.
The reason the gun was invented is undoubtedly for a faster and more efficient way of killing. Whether this is towards killing an animal or even a person, it remains to be a tool for killing. People do not need this, there is no legitimate reason for people to own a tool whose main purpose is directed towards murder.
Posted by: AnonymousPlease explain to me why
while you may say, protecting you family, who truly needs an AK-47 if a burgler comes into their house? Normal citizens should not be provided with such instruments because while the few may actually need it, most people obtain assault weapons to do bad against people they dislike. When people obtain such a weapon, it is easy to let it circulate around. And who would end up with it? Yes, the mistakes of the few should typically not affect the whole. But when lives are at stake- who really wants to take the chance?
Posted by: MissUndomielYes, they serve no purpose.
Assault weapons should be banned because they serve no purpose but killing many people in little time without having to worry about reloading. I think that if someone wants a handgun for protection or a hunting rifle for hunting, then that's fine but a AK-47? NO USE! Its sole purpose is to kill a lot of people as quickly as possible.
Posted by: AnonymousAssault weapons? Yes. They're weapons of war, and not to be in the hands of a citizen.
We're citizens. Normal people. We aren't Somalian pirates, or living in a place so ravaged by war that we must carry around AK-47's on our backs and loaded RPGs on our fronts. The question is not to take away our guns; that's silly. I'm fine with owning a handgun, or a rifle, more like it. More stability, less of a chance to misfire or hurt someone. An assault weapon does just that, though; it assaults.
I'll still have my handgun or my spring-blade ready incase someone feels the need to pop into my front door and steal my dinky TV (no need to shoot them then, of course, just if they're trying to do so first! Get what you give, eh?), but gods, when the hell would I need to blast an assault rifle throughout my house?
When would I need it /anywhere/, for that matter? The only possible use I could see is for killing a bunch of folk, and I think I couldn't do it if they'd lined me up for my own firing squad.Posted by: ardentllamaI have one and we shouldn't
There is no reasonable justification for an assault rifle. Protection from what. Shotgun works just as well. Hunt what. I standard rifle can be better than assault rifle.
High capacity magazines and assault rifles serve one purpose. Kill a lot of people.
I get it. I have an AR15. They're fun. But I would happily give it up if everyone else does.Posted by: jberge8Crowd Control vs. Practicality
Crowd control weapons have absolutely NO place in civilian hands, and never will, no matter the societal belief. Assault weapons are designed for crowd control and killing bulks of people.
The excuse of "recreation" is out of the question unless you're a collector. The excuse of "hunting" is out of the question because you will never be able to do anything with a mauled and lead-infested carcass unless you have some affinity for killing and mauling harmless animals.
I can understand hunting, I can understand self-defence, and I understand (although not entirely condone) the recreational aspects. Gun collecting is likewise understandable. However, a crowd control weapon has no need to exist and no matter what weapons have, do and will always have the same purpose: to kill (no matter what you say).
As a retaliation against the majority of polar "No" responses: the question is in no way labelling ALL weapons and the constant teat-sucking of the Second Amendment is abused to the point of arguable credibility. Please note that not all participants in this debate are from the States.
Abusing the ability to quote an extremely outdated privilege from a time when the FREE state and ARMED MILITIA were a necessity and protection of land from people who could and would walk onto your land and call it theirs was a common requirement. Mind my ad hominem, but I find it amusing that so many Usonians will consistently cry the name of their country and hold their flag a banner, cheering on the government that continues to corrode them but so paranoid of a tyrannical retaliation when they so commonly boast being the (feigned) "freest country." And so far that seems to be the only reasoning to a number of debates.
If you wish to debate the issue further, message me; for I've said what I wish to say today.Posted by: OverkillThere's no point in owning one.
Pistols or shotguns are one thing, but there is no point in possessing an assault weapon. You can argue that you can use them for hunting, but that is not what those types of guns are made for. They are made for killing people, not animals. It is far too dangerous to own a gun that can shoot ten bullets in a second. If you want to shoot something, go buy a gun that won't get you killed.
Posted by: kaylapello25There is no sane reason for citizens to own these military-style weapons.
These were designed to be use in military combat, not to be in American homes. There are so many other kinds of weapons to own, what possible reason or need could you have to own one? They have been used to kill multiple children and adults in a few minutes and will be used for that purpose again if we don't make them illegal to own. This is not infringing on anyone's right to own weapons or bear arms. The argument that this would "just be the beginning of taking away citizens guns" is ridiculous. That's like saying that when the government won't let unsafe cars be sold to it's citizens that the government will soon ban all cars!! My husband and I are gun owners and we would fight for that right if anyone tried to take it away from us. Please take a look at England where the citizens do not have the right to own guns. There were over 11,000 gun murders in the USA last year and only 60 in England. The average deaths by guns in England has been 62 in the past 15 years. Ask the English citizens if they feel safer or less safe not owning a gun and they will almost all say they feel safer!!
Posted by: AnonymousProtection for humanity.
By definition assault means to kill or harm. All assault weapons should be registered even if it is a sword like the Japanese culture because people have mental illness naturally and there is no proven screening method to detect any of the illnesses. We need to protect people from doing harmful acts when they might be at exposure to bad decision making.
Posted by: AnonymousThere is no logical reason.
Civilians should not be capable of arming themselves with military-grade weaponry. I have herd the argument that people like to hunt with AKs, but is that not just as sporting as fishing with dynamite? Most of all, we here "'cause of the Second Amendment". There are limits to the freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights, and this does not exclude the "The right to bear arms". You have the right to defend yourself—yes—but you should nit have the capability to mow down crowds of children. It is hard to imagine that any similar damage related to these events would be capable with a non-automatic weapon. Furthermore, if you want to protect yourself from an "impeding government takeover", you should best move off the planet. In the case you were targeted by the government, there are a dozen ways they could blow your ass to kingdom come. You and your assault rifle bear no chance when compared to a specialized task force, or drone strike.
Posted by: AnonymousWhy do you need a gun?
Why do you need a gun? The point of a gun is to kill, but what are you killing? Animals? What for? For sport? Why not try archery, much more challenging. OK so you need a gun for protection, but from what? Burglars? So Americans are prepared to commit murder at a moments notice?
I can go on but long story short is "no guns, no gun violence"Posted by: Anonymousshould not be allowed
Assault weaponry is very dangerous. The military uses assault weaponry to win wars, citizens should not have them as we do not fight in wars. We should, though, be allowed to own a pistol without a license and rifles should not be banned as well. Which I believe will never happen.
Posted by: AnonymousThey are absolutely not needed.
It doesn't matter if they only account for 1% of gun killings, they are still not needed.
It doesn't matter if other guns are more effective, that can be addressed also, still not needed.
The government is not going to turn on the nation, and even if they did, the general public cannot stop the military. Still not needed.
You shoot them as a hobby? Go to a gun range. Not needed in your home.
You use one for protection? What is going to be so bad that you would need an assault rifle over a handgun? Nothing. A handgun would be far easier to operate in a quick situation.
Why don't people at least try? Do you not care?Posted by: AnonymousYes they should
They should be banned because we hurt each other and our wildlife. Also god made us to last and we are not doing as he planned also he wants us to live for as long he intended us to but these guns are not helping and were robbing banks and all of these bad things.
Posted by: AnonymousThere is no need for one!
Assault Rifles have been used so much this past year to kill so many innocent people, think about all the little kids who were shot at Sandy Hook. An assault rifle was used for it. The magazine in that gun is outrageous. We have shot guns for hunting we dont need to be able to shoot at the speed of light to kill a deer. We just don't need them, plain and simple.
Posted by: AnonymousCivilians don't need assault weapons. all assault weapons do is get people killed.
There have been a plethora of mass shootings, and more stories of mass shootings keep showing up on the news all the time. These are all done with assault weapons. Take an example from australia. In the 1990s there was a big mass shooting, and the government banned assault weapons as a response to that. There have been no mass shootings in australia since then. If you want to hunt, why would you need an automatic weapon to kill a deer? Its impractical and senseless. Civilians dont need assault weapons. All they do is get people killed.
Posted by: AnonymousWithout assault weapons, there would be fewer murders i would believe, unless of course it was purchased illegally.
No assault weapons, which are only meant to kill humans, means a lower murder/ death rate, because people would not be able to kill each other easily. Without assault weapons, it would help us to feel safer and not threatened by anyone in the U.S. Thinking about the banning of assault weapons already makes me feel much better.
Posted by: AnonymousTYes I agree because they are too destructive to exist in society
Switzerland has no army and is landlocked by many countries large and small. The citizens there ARE their militia, and the enemy is not within.The patriotic position in my opinion is hogwash. It's simply a refusal to face the actual problem, and it's a shameless way of hiding. As such, the NRA has been an embarrassment nationally, with their heads completely in the sand about the freedoms (and lives) lost. They are remarkably out of touch with the problem they've enabled.
In America, the enemy is your neighbor--the crazy on a killing spree, gangs, or the intruders into a vulnerable home. What to do? What protection is there if the gangs or intruders arrive with assault weapons? Not much. Isn't that a reason to take them out of the picture altogether--for aggressors & defenders? To bring down the number of killings?
I suppose some in rural areas want to remove vulnerabilities for children left alone, or women, or senior in their civil society of homes loaded w assault weapons. That is a consideration whose solution is too extreme. Shouldn't a rifle be enough? Is there no other way to stop more than one intruder without making mass killing machines open to all. There must be, and will need to be the alternative. You are welcome to protect your home but not endanger the public.Posted by: AnonymousAre we being invaded soon?
Think about it. When does one need an assault weapon? Self defense at home? Seems you should be able to protect yourself with a shotgun loaded with buckshot. The mere sound of one racking a shotgun will make an intruder pause, knowing the aim does not have to be perfect. The right to bear arms? Yes. The right to stock up with assault weapons? I really don't think this situation was what the founders of our country meant in formulating the amendment.
Posted by: AnonymousI come from a gun owning family...
However sporting clays and trap shooting is a two shots and then reload "Sport". These guns are of course weapons and can be used for deadly harm. There is no sport in having a weapon capable of firing 30,20,15,10, or even 5 rounds. It makes no sense to me to walk into a sporting goods store and see these kinds of assault weapons on display for the general public to purchase.
Posted by: AnonymousYou don't need a 100 round burst to stop a burglar!
I am a 9 year veteran of the Army and have years of experience with weapons, automatic, semi, etc... There's no place for assault weapons in the civilian world. That's the end of it. There's no talk of taking your precious hand guns or rifles away, that's moronic to say. There's no argument that supports the assault weapon use in the civilian world. There's no animal that should be shot with a dozen rounds, there's no burglar you can't kill or disable with 1 round. Strict gun laws need to be in place. Of course, we have the right to be armed, of course, we should have an armed officer at every school, but there's no purpose in auto weapons!
Posted by: AnonymousCivilians don't not need to own these.
Yes I am a hunter I am a USMC vet serving in the infantry and used assault rifles during my service. I'm my opinion there is no need for the civilian population to own these weapons. I feel that a high caliber high capacity rifle has is not needed for hunting and even recreational shooting. A ar 15 in 22lr can give the recreational shooter what he needs. I have nothing against responsible gun ownership but it is a fact that high power high capacity automatic rifles are made with one purpose in mind and that is to kill during a time of war. I truly feel that assault rifles chambered in a high caliber should be banned. As for automatic pistols there needs to be stricter regulations on obtaining and owning one.
Posted by: AnonymousAssault weapons are for attack on a battlefield
Assault weapons are designed for military use, there is no justification for them in home protection, hunting or recreation. One of the issues with the recently publicized attacks on innocent people is the fact that the perpetrators have been able to use these highly powerful multiple shot weapons to kill numerous individuals.
Posted by: AnonymousBeing a responsible gun owner vs responsible citizen
I don't think that all guns should be outlawed. But I do not understand why taking away assault weapons or even gun shows that allow anyone to purchase a gun is such a big deal. I've heard the arguments. Government take over(which I consider very unlikely & more of a crazy excuse), or worries that it would open the door to even more/stricter gun control. But if you asked me to do something like, don't buy a particular brand of shoes and give up the ones you already own so that we can do our best to prevent the death of innocent people, I would do it. There's a lot of talk about responsible gun owners. That's great that your responsible and take necessary precautions and have your license and are trained on your weapon. But how do you not also feel a responsibility to help prevent these types of tragedies by understanding that a small inconvenience you could literally save a life.
Posted by: AnonymousThere is no good reason to have one
No one needs a weapon that can kill tens of people in minutes. Not for sport, not for anything. Also not to fight the government, as a popular but invalid argument goes. The government has the US military. No amount of assault weapons can overthrow the US military. They have much heavier weapons. Anyone wanting to legalize those heavier weapons? Think drones with hellfire missiles, jet fighters, bunker busters, hydrogen bombs. The founding fathers didn't have to worry about those BUT WE DO!
Posted by: AnonymousPointing a gun on another human being is wrong
After what occurred in Connecticut and the FAQ that the USA has the most deaths due to stupid citizens with guns. They should not give out guns too citizens it causes so many deaths per year in the US. Sure people would argue saying that guns protect us from intruders, but they also take lives away. Right now the US and Obama should ban the use of guns.
Posted by: AnonymousWe don't need weapons to exist
We're not a hunting society, and we have adequate protections in place by our cities, states and country.
There are plenty of guns we can kill each other with (oh yea, and go hunting) without needing something that can discharge 30 rounds or is an automatic weapon.
Weapons for protection and hunting is a red herring.Posted by: AnonymousGUNS ARE THE MEANS ... crazy or not
2nd amendment, infringement on freedom, only crazy and loony people kill others, etc etc . All these reasons that are given in support of gun possession are based on the assumption that guns and arms will be used wisely. But what laws and regulations are put in place to ensure that "SANE PEOPLE" are the only ones getting access to these deadly weapons? And what will stop these sane people from using them against innocent people under pretentious "stand your ground" laws? What is to stop a crazy person having a nervous breakdown from getting them and using them on innocent people? Certainly the regulations are not effective as of today, otherwise we would not have these shootings. So should this be allowed? Banning gun possession by civilians will certainly make it harder for these loonies to have access to them. It would be better if they get the mental treatment that they need but at least banning guns will not give them a means to hurt others .
Posted by: AnonymousIt is a weapon of war and destruction.
If a person feels the need to have a gun to protect themselves then a handgun and instructions on using it correctly are all one needs. An assault weapon is designed to injure and kill multiple people, not likely to be needed in the majority of U.S. neighborhoods. Most likely these weapons are coveted by those who need to feel powerful and more important than they really are. Their personality disfunction is no reason to put the rest of the population in danger. And as for the popular saying "people kill people". That is true, but I don't think you can get close to 27 people and stab them to death quite as quickly as you can with an assault weapon. They would at least have a fighting chance.
Posted by: Anonymousassault weapons are bombs in the shape of a gun
Get rid of these WMDS! If you can conceal a weapon that can kill 100 people without reloading --its not a gun-its a bomb SHAPED like a gun. Don't even classify this as a gun--its sole purpose is to kill many people quickly. It has become the weapon of choice for crazy citizens.
Posted by: AnonymousK-4th? Protect our children. Ban assault weapons!!
We don't need guns that can shoot 100 rounds without reloading-Our citizens are killing our children with guns. The NRA says its bad people that use these guns--its not though really, its people just like all of us who snap and have easy access to take out their grief or their revenge with not a knife or rifle but a fully automated assault weapon that should be reserved for military use--not children. These guns keep shooting and shooting and shooting...time to take a stand against the NRA. Together the Moms and Dads have so much more power-lets use it!
Posted by: AnonymousYes, but...
As an educated person with so common sense I have to say YES. And by that I mean that no one outside of the military or law enforcement should own a fully automatic firearm. I know that an individual must go through a lot of checks and pay more money to own such a weapon, but why? I myself am a gun owner, but see no reason that a normal citizen should need a fully automatic weapon. Yes, I am using the term "fully automatic" a lot to specify what a real "Assault Weapon" is. A consumer sporting rifle, AR15 platform and the like, are not Assault Weapons by any means. They actually require more maintenance than a normal rifle due to their design. I know, I own 2 AR15's, 2 hunting rifles, 2 shotguns, 1 carbine, & 4 pistols. The only real thing that differentiates them from normal rifles other than how they look and the operation of the bolt / receiver is the higher capacity magazines that are available and the add on goodies.
Posted by: Anonymous21 century
the only reason why the founding father put the right to bear arms is because of how necessary the gun was for survival. Now in the 21 century we really dont need guns to survive. If you say that guns are needed for hunting,then you are wrong there are other mean use for hunting.
Posted by: usconstitutionThere is no GOOD reason for having them.
You can not give me one good reason for owning an assault weapon. It is in the name 'assault'. Wanting to collect them is doing as much good as collecting child pornography. Why would you collect something that is specifically made for killing human beings. It's not like collecting cars. Most collectible cars are made specifically for their collectability. And to those who think its for protection.. its not the 18th century anymore. It doesn't take months to move around armed forces. Let's start living in a CIVILIZED and reasonable world
Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely
when you give a young punk an assault weapon and she shoots up an entire school or some other public function dont cry for gun regulation then. lives are protected when assault weapons and other guns are restricted from the public
Posted by: AnonymousThere is no Constitutional guarantee of the right to possess assault weapons.
Nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to own assault weapons, and the potential for mass killings makes them an easy target for banning. If they are not banned in this country, then that is a real failure of common sense, and a triumph of the lunatic gun-ownership rights fringe.
Posted by: Th4FireYes
I want to see gun owners suffer. They don't have the courage to use their guns on government anyhow. Nothing more than paper heroes. We're entering a new era and people need to either submit or perish. Your liberties and your guns are of no use to us. Our objective for this new era needs to be good living, good entertainment and good luxuries. If you want your guns go form your own country(even though we're going to invade it later on and force you to submit anyhow).
Posted by: AnonymousThey have no part in a civil society.
Assualt rifles are dangerous, there is no reason for them to be in our society. The danger they present most will never be able to fully comprehend. I used to own one of these tools of evil, the power they have is overwelming. The damage they are capable of causing is disturbing. Every time I just looked at the thing it instilled in me a bewildering desire to hurt and kill, picking it up was exhilarating. The feeling of power was amazing but the hunger it caused in me to kill frightend me. I had to destroy it before it was too late. Anyone that owns or is around one of these things is playing with fire, they will get burned. If you know anyone with one of these vicious, vile things or own one yourself get rid of it or better yet destroy it so it doesn't wind up in some unsuspecting persons hands.
ARock87Posted by: AnonymousThere is no reason to possess an assault weapon if you are a law abiding citizen.
While hunting is fine, who uses an assault weapon for hunting? Assault weapons are good for one thing only- crime. Hand guns are no better, but assault weapons simply do more damage and there is no good reason to have one in your possession. While many would argue second amendment rights, I seriously doubt that, if our founding fathers saw the damage done by assault weapons, the second amendment never would have been written.
Posted by: BLeonardCitizens in the United States should be banned from owning assault weapons because their is no practical need for those types of weapons when their are already countless numbers of guns available for hunting and target shooting.
Citizens in the United States should be banned from owning assault weapons because their is no practical need for those types of weapons when their are already countless numbers of guns available for hunting and target shooting. United States citizens do have the right to own firearms. Many people enjoy hunting, target shooting or gun collecting. However, an assault rife that shoots a continuous stream of bullets is not practical or even useful in today's society. Their is currently a wide range of single shot firearms that exist today that could be substituted for an assault rifle. Hunting rifles, shotguns, pistols and the like must be enough to satisfy a gun crazy society.
Posted by: 53r3n3PiersMass-murder weapons are unnecessary for self defense
Making it harder to acquire deadly firepower can be only save lives. If Nancy Lanza didn't own an AR-15, some of those kids would still be alive. Why do you gun nuts think your toys are more important than children's lives? Are you preparing for the zombie apocalypse or what?
Posted by: AnonymousWhy dismiss what happens in other countries?
As a non-America looking in it feels as though many of the anti gun regulation side has an almost defeatist attitude toward the current situation. That of "if madmen want to do harm they will find away." And "there's so many guns accessible to criminals so we need to arm ourselves." But why isn't this the case in countries that have stricter laws and less proliferation of assault weapons and handguns? If they stick to the mantra of "guns dont kill people kill" and refuse to attribute guns to at least part of the reason why the homicide rate in the US is 3x that of other western nations they're essentially concluding that Americans have a higher propensity for violent criminal and psychotic behavior than the rest of the industrialized world.
But where that falls flat is in comparison to countries like Canada, where overall crime rates are similar but homicide rates are almost 4x higher. It's also a country exposed to the same movies, same video games, has the same divorce rates and has even less influence from God than conservatives in the US are complaining about. Could it be that adding guns to the equation changes the outcome of crimes?
It seems to me that the anti gun regulation side are refusing to acknowledge facts, preferring instead to fall back on platitudes around the 2nd amendment and "what-if" scenarios related to the government turning their weapons on its citizens or an imagined foreign army parachuting onto mid-western high school football fields. It's time to apply common sense to the problem, supported by empirical data not platitudes and irrational what-ifs.Posted by: VikrimA middle ground
The real question is why would we not ban semi automatics and large clip magazines when those are typically what is used in many of the modern day mass shootings. More guns is not always the answer, as those in Columbine would attest to as they had armed guards at their school. It's not about taking away a persons right to bear arms, it's about being logical as to why they need such weapons in the first place. Yes, the 2nd Amendment was developed so the average citizen could revolt against a government that turned into a tyranny. However, our public doesn't even raise up in protest against the government in cases such as gun legislation as proven by the minimum number of 54% of the population who want stricter gun control laws. Unfortunately, I don't believe this will happen as long as the NRA is able to lobby in Washington as they currently do. The average citizens cannot compete with that type of lobbying and the government is too corrupt as they all want to line their pockets. We will continue to see increases in such violent acts because we have defunded mental health services and we have a greedy government without a backbone. Our system is broken and gun control is only one portion.
Posted by: AnonymousPeople don't even know what an "assault weapon" is
Loopholes? The loopholes the left is griping about is the private sale of personal to property to another private person.
"Assault Weapons" are weapons made FOR military, these rifles the news keeps throwing up ARE NOT combat rifles. If the idiots wanting to ban guns would spend more than five minutes listening to someone else's talking points and actually do a little experiencing themselves, the situation would be much clearer.
In the end, it's MY RIGHT to own my weapons, regardless. Once you decide it's okay to limit one right, you have to recognize they are all open to arbitrarily decided limits.Posted by: AnonymousPracticality
There are no practical uses for regular citizens owning an assault weapon. If there are no everyday uses for these types of weapons, why should people be this concerned over the idea of banning them? It is just as reasonable, if not more, to defend yourself and home using a pistol or handgun.
Posted by: cmalt13Lets all have nuclear weapons.
South Africa, Columbia, Thailand and the United States is the descending order of murder rates by guns. Yes I know, guns don't kill people, people kill people and that argument also works for nuclear weapons....so why can't I have one of those? The only difference would be the number of people I can kill and nothing deters a would-be thief like an atomic explosion.
Posted by: filipoIs this sanity or insanity?
There is no industrialized country other than the US where people are obsessed by the idea that they have to own guns to defend themselves against attackers.
The worst, completely absurd reason given by some is their right to own guns so they can fight their own government if necessary, as though they could possibly defend themselves against their own military forces.
There are two self-evident facts that are a real challenge to opponents of gun control.
1. More people die of gunshot wounds in the US than in any other industrialized country and major economy around the world.
2. In the US, gun homicide rate is almost twenty times higher than in other "advanced" nation.
It simply shows that “more guns” means “more mass shootings,” “more homicides” and more misery yet many Americans choose to live in denial.
Is that sanity or insanity?Posted by: euGeneYeah no one in that Chinese classroom died, did they?
Because it was only knives, not semi-automatics. All of the students that were stabbed still have their lives, don't they? Use some common sense, at least if someone only has a handgun or a knife, chances are they won't be able to kill that many people, they might hurt a few, but people would still have their lives. I'm tired of all these cowards using their semi-automatics to have an advantage. Put down the guns, and lets take it back to good ol' fighting with our hands, and we will see who will end up in a terrible physical condition.
Posted by: AnonymousLook at the funding
I think we need to take a hard look at the NRA and their leadership. Where does their agenda come from? How much money do they spend on lobbying? I am convinced that the NRA is a front for all the gun manufactures that produced such weapons. Keep in mind a ban would mean fewer profits for the manufactures. Also keep in mind that up to the early 1970 the NRA itself was against these types of weapons and promoted a more reasonable policy. They have turned from an membership of responsible gun owners that originally where concerned with gun safety to the nation’s largest lobbyist group, that threaten and distort the second amendment to promote their agenda. I think we should look at a ban on the NRA current leadership. This would also explain why their membership is dropping every year.
Posted by: TonytheTiger1967Take these rifles away.
Citizens (civilians) have no need for firearms. Only the police and military need firearms. It is much easier to control the citizenry if the only the government have weapons. Typical citizens are troubled and ignorant. They need to be policed by a knowledgeable and powerful government that can censor what society reads writes and thinks. If the citizens have weapons the can resist this, and that would be bad... right?
Posted by: AnonymousWhat is the purpose?
Why does a person need a assault weapon? To hunt? To defend your home? Just to say you own one. The idea that it is attacking the 2nd amendment is silly. There are weapons that you are not allowed to own like tanks, rocket launchers, and nukes and no one is screaming that their 2nd amendment is violated.
Posted by: AnonymousFocus should be on shooter and not the gun...but...
Unlike most women, I've shot M-16, AK47, Uzis and guns I can't even remember now. I don't think the answer is gun control as the law abiding citizens are the ones who will follow the rules, nor do I think the answer is arming teachers/principals. That is a knee jerk reaction. We need to look at is preventing nonviolence. Gun, knife, hammer...any tool will become a weapons if we do not address our societal ills. That being said, I do not believe the average American should have a semi-automatic as they are only good for one thing - the military. It is fun to shoot but there is an aggressiveness that comes from the power behind the weapon. Not everyone acts upon it because we have impulse control, but not everyone has that. I'm not putting my life in the hands of someone else to determine.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat is the need?
What is the purpose of possessing a semi automatic gun? If you say for hunting, oh please, who hunts with an assault rifle? The sole purpose of an assault rifle is for doing harm to another. There is no other purpose but for killing another person. You may say that it goes against your second amendment rights. No, it is right to bare arms, not assault weapons. You can use the weapons that aren't semi automatic for defense, and hunting. But for what other reason will you be using a gun? The ones that believe having an assault weapons are the ones who are redneck and think a zombie apocalypse will occur in the next few years. Cmon people get a brain.
Posted by: AnonymousInsanity
I actually did take some time to read the NO side. One person said "reading some stories like the good they've done"... or "this just comes down to choice and preference" ... or better yet "It's to protect ourselves from the government".
These answers have absolutely no base with reality. The argument that "there are criminals and murderers out there - so I need a gun" is borderline insane. The "I have a gun to protect my family" ranks up there - equally accommodating to the masses who fill up the ranks of the NRA.
I say to those on the NO side ... if you're going to get a gun, GET A LIFE!Posted by: AnonymousGuns like this are for gangsters and conspiracy theorist.
I hear time and again that American's need weapons to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Truth be told most people wouldn't even know how to load an assault weapon much less use it in combat. Guns like this are for gangsters and conspiracy theorist. In this modern age if a government is going to be toppled it needs to be done with brains not bullets. Our forefathers never would have endorsed the right bear arms if they knew the potential damage modern weapons can do.
Posted by: naturewalkingThere is absolutely no reason as to why citizens should possess such a weapon.
Assault weapons are designed to kill with devastating speed and force. The main argument in support of their possession is that a government could exercise tyranny against its citizens. This is unjustified, as I live in Australia where there are no assault weapons in the hands of civilians and our government has never (and I'll wager it never will) forced us into a position where we wish we had a gun. On the other hand, there are plenty of tyrannical governments in countries of regions in Africa where there are no real laws against assault weapons, yet the oppression there has not diminished as a result.
Posted by: MatthewestI can't see why anyone needs one
Raise your hand if you are a hunter-gatherer? Hmm... No one raised his hand. What a shocker. People! This is not 1850! We are living in 2013! No one needs to own an assault weapon. I feel that no one should own a gun of any form, but that is for another debate. If you really think that you can stop violence with a gun, join the military or the police. All that assault weapons do is cause harm. I can name several instances in which that has occurred. Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about. And Conservatives? Cut your Second Amendment bull. That piece of legislation is completely outdated and irrelevant. You don't need a high-magazine weapon, so don't fight for one.
Posted by: AA777They don't take away right to bear arms
Honestly when the founding fathers were putting together the constitution, we didn't have assault weapons. They're military weapons and not intended for civilian use. They do so much damage. If you want to defend yourself or go hunting then use a handgun or rifle! Those aren't assault weapons! It's not like we're banning guns completely.
Posted by: AnonymousThe bad outweighs the good
Personally, I think the only reason that anyone one should own a gun is for hunting or if your country is going to war but having the right to own an assault weapon is just unnecessary and will lead to bigger problems. Someone, against the assault weapon ban, wrote that there we actually be more weapons in the US if assault weapons were banned because criminals would deal them on the black market. This statement makes no sense because criminals are still going to deal weapons on the black market without a assault weapon ban but they will also have access to assault weapons legally and easily which, in term, would increase murder in the US. I could go on about why this ban must take place but I will just say that giving citizens the right to harm themselves with assault weapons is going to lead to increased murder rates in the long term and it will not send a positive message to future generations.
Posted by: AnonymousYES YES YES
It is just so because people do not need this violence in our lives. It is not our fault that there are people in this world that want and need to use a gun to kill others which is why we should get rid of it all in all. Protection? You do not need a gun to do that. The person who might come for might use it against you if you have one. If you need protection go to the police. They are there to help. They will protect you so you willl feel safe. Guns and violence are not the answer.
Posted by: AnonymousTo protect the ones we love over our selfish desires.
This ban would somewhat impose on one of our known rights - the Second Amendment. However, your own liberty ends when it imposes on another's. Without the use of an assault weapon for anyone, there wouldn't be a reason to have it. For example, a simple principal would not need to carry a gun for protection if there wasn't anyone with a gun and the constant threat looming of a mass murder.
Eradicating the number of them out there would of course take time and efforts. But it is the effort that's comforting - knowing that as Americans we care more about our loved ones than our own selfish, personal belongings.Posted by: AnonymousThere is no real need for them.
Americans don't hunt game with them and they don't defend themselves with them. Real people use a pistol to defend themselves and a hunting rifle to hunt game. "I just want one" and "Just in case we have a Government uprising" are not valid reasons to own one of these.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, this is not a warzone.
Why should Americans have in their homes the type of weapons that are essentially used to kill terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq? A shotgun can be used for defense; besides, no one has room to keep an AK-47 under his pillow. It simply is not practical. Note such horrific cases as Adam Lanza at Newtown.
Posted by: gdeutchAbsolutely they're dangerous.
You know the reason of why America has more school shootings than Canada? Because Americans have assault weapons without needing a license. It's unsafe and worthless to have in your house. The law of being able to shoot anyone on your property is barbarous and stupid. These weapons should be kept with highly trained people and not people who have the potential to be crazy and start killing children.
Posted by: AnonymousPeople may kill people, but that's not the point.
The argument that people kill people is a bad one because guns facilitate their ability to kill in large amounts. If I had a fully loaded bush master, which was designed specifically to kill people and fight in wars, with a high capacity magazine with penetration rounds and I decided to fire directly into a crowd, I would kill a lot of people. Now, if I didn't have that handy dandy bushmaster laying under my pillow for "protection" and I decided I wanted to kill a bunch of people with my Swiss army knife, not very many people would die. Someone would stop me before I could kill even a few people. The reason these assault rifles are bad is because I can easily kill a person on a whim by barely moving my finger. We have a lot of possible inmates and crazy people in this country that could do a lot of damage before they could be stopped. Others argue that if we get rid of guns, our crime rates will go up and everything will go to hell without the protection of the average American gun owner. Must I remind those people that argue that we are not taking away guns from our police or military? When you here of a crime being committed or a murder occurring, it isn't American Joe who stopped the crime with his two conceal carry m16s in his hands, but the police. The police are here to protect us and have been well trained to do so. Also, other assault rifle supporters say that it is our right in the constitution or that this is America. Just because this is America doesn't mean that you should be able to do whatever the hell you want because you can't tread on my god given rights. As many have said, the constitution was written in a time where Americans had recently been under an oppressive government and felt that Americans should have the ability to rise up again if they were under similar oppression. Despite what many may say, we live in a democratic society that is not ruled by the modern equivalent of Hitler sent by the postmortem Osama Bin Laden to take away your "god given rights". Others say that we should get rid of the first amendment too because the second is outdated. First of all, writing on a computer is pretty much the same as speaking and writing, and therefore still is modern and will continue to be as long as this current government system is in place. Also, you claim that if that was 1st amendment was scrapped, we couldn't speak, but the current administration supports banning assault rifles, so you wouldn't be able to speak. Next, and argument against banning assault rifles is that if a country invades and the citizens become the target, no one will be able to defend themselves. This is wrong since without guns we aren't a threat.
Posted by: AnonymousNo reason to own assault weapons, ever
Simply put, assault weapons are unnecessary for civilian use. They were originally designed for use in the military, and serve no purpose for people who aren't trained to use them. There are a few major reasons assault weapons should not be available for citizens:
-Not necessary for sport or recreation
The few owners of assault weapons in the United States that use their firearms for recreation or sport would be better off using regular firearms for these activities; they are safer, less volatile, have better aim, and are far more effective.
-Dangerous
Assault weapons cause more casualties than regular firearms due to the rapid-fire nature of the guns. This is seen as an advantage for criminals, but not for those using the weapon for self defense. Therefore, providing the public with the opportunity to own assault weapons will benefit criminals more than civilians in the area of self-defense.
-Less effective than a non-assault firearm
It is harder to aim with an assault weapon, and even if a person needed an assault weapon, and they were legal, it would be highly unlikely that said person would
a) have one at the time and
b) know how to effectively operate the weapon.
-Making them illegal will make it harder for criminals to access them
Driving down supply drives up prices; it's a simple product of supply and demand. The higher the prices, and the more difficult the obtain the weapons are, the less likely criminals are to choose this type of weapon, when other, more effective ones, are available. This will also make a "Black Market" less effective, as criminals choose cheaper, less dangerous weapons instead.Posted by: AnonymousSo we can have more mass shootings?
That's the only thing they're good for in the hands of civilians. The Second Amendment does not state that everyone has the right to bear any sort of weapon they like. Maybe WMDs should also allowed. This is just about the gun lobby getting its way, and not really about self-Defense or rights.
Posted by: DannyAUWhy do you need them?
This is an intriguing question to someone living in a society where even the police arent armed.
Over in the UK - there seems to be very little reason we can see why an individual would need an assualt rifle. The Consitution if i have it correct gives Americans the right to bear arms - a consitution written when the country had finished a civil war - and the threat of retaliation was there.
Who the hell are u protecting yourselves against now that u need an assualt weapon?Posted by: UrsciclesIs this even a question?
Assault weapons make absolute no sense in the civilized world. If there were no weapons there will be no weapon-related murders and all the related issues about them.
No one in Europe can have them, that's unthinkable. US must change their attitude towards guns. Assault weapons belong to military issues, only.Posted by: AnonymousThe second amendment and hunting will not save you!
The most prevalent pro gun legislature–the one you hear propagandized gun rights supporters always allude to–the second amendment, was conceived on the notion that the US should not have a standing army and instead rely on state militias and armed civilians to repel invading forces. Today the US spends the most on defense in the entire world by far and is a tyrannical as every. If ever is a good time to dethrone a tyrannical government, now would be the time! Oh? You don't want to go against the largest army in human history on the basis of ideals? Didn't think so. So that AR-15 and Bushmaster you have there are for deer? Riiiiight.
Posted by: MilesandMilesofMilesthey should be banned. They are designed solely to kill people during armed conflict (war).
They serve no purpose for private citizens except for making insecure people feel better about themselves. No one needs an assault weapon to protect their house. The risks far outweigh any benefit. If people want to stroke their own ego, maybe they should go to the gym or take a college class.
Posted by: bob110They serve no useful purpose.
If assault weapons were used for hunting, there would be no animals left to eat or use to make something with. Shotguns are for hunting. Pistols are for self protection. There should be a ban on assault weapons because you can't do anything with them besides blow things to pieces.
Posted by: AnonymousIn order to prevent violence.
We shouldn't wait for a ban while others are killing people. If we ban assault weapons, we should only have rifles for deer and handguns for protection. One example is the Connecticut school shooting. This is a reason why we only need to ban assault weapons. So what do you think we should do? Fair?
Posted by: AnonymousNo, this is common sense.
First, I am 100% in favor of gun ownership. I believe that every American citizen has the right to own a gun or guns, and to be allowed to use said weapon to protect oneself if the need arises. However, that being said, I do not believe that a citizen should have the right to own military grade assault weapons. There is misconception in this country that freedom means the limitless ability to have whatever you want, and to do whatever you please. However, for freedom to be truly enjoyed, we must place reasonable limits upon it. That is why we have laws; to ensure public safety and civility, while maintaining the greatest breadth of freedom possible. For example, one has the right and freedom to own a car. However, certain cars, such as racecars, are not considered street-legal. Why should gun ownership be any different?
Posted by: AnonymousYes, if not, you may as well arm the criminals with assault weapons also.
The more assault weapons owned by the public the easier it is for the criminals to access them. All they need to do is break in when you're not home and take your weapon, and eventually it will be used in a crime. They sure won't buy them if they can steal them. The more there are the more the lowlife will have, the more shootings there will be.
Posted by: AnonymousAssault rifles are for war.
Assault rifles were designed to remove opponents from battle by either inflicting massive tissue damage or killing him. There is no need to have these weapons in the hands of civilians. There are many other effective, proven and less lethal ways to protect one's home & family. Security systems, guard dogs, security doors & windows, shot guns, mace, etc.
Posted by: AnonymousYou have to think about reality
The purpose of the second amendment is so that if the government becomes oppressive then we can defend ourselves. Our government will never become oppressive unless there is some major disaster. However even if they did the army would be on our side not the governments side. First of all they are citizens not the government. Second of all think about it why would the people who risk their lives for freedom want to then fight against it. Trust me we would have the army who would the government have? Therefore weapons designed to shred people up are not needed for personal defense
Posted by: AnonymousGuns Kill People; Guns Were Invented to Kill People.
Yes, people kill people. But if that's the problem, is the answer "Here, people! This invention here makes it super easy for people to kill people!" ? Guns were invented for the sole purpose of killing, unlike matches, and cars, and medicine, and tools. Matches were made to heat your home, etc., cars were made for transportation, medicine was made to heal you, tools were made to help you better things.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are a big NO-NO!
What is the point of an assault weapon? To end a human life? To end the life of someone's mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, uncle, niece, nephew, brother, sister, cousin, etc..? Assault weapons are specifically designed to kill a mass of people. The Columbine Shooting, the Virginia Tech Shooting, and the most recent, the Newtown Shooting. All these shootings were accomplished through murderers with assault rifles. MAYBE these people would have still died if their killers didn't have assault rifles. HOWEVER, it would have been far more difficult to achieve these horrible crimes without them. There is no one, absolutely no one, who has a solid reason to have an assault weapon. Why do you need to? If you need an assault rifle, it's because you THINK you need it, not because you actually do. The best way to stop all these terrible events from happening in the first place is to have no more spaces to make such mistakes. If civilians weren't allowed to buy guns for whatever excuse they can muster, then there'd be a lot less people in jail, and six feet under. This isn't about what gun owners have a right to do, and what they don't. The Second Amendment is outdated. There is no reason to kill in the twenty-first century, just as there never was decades ago. If the Second-Amendment said it was your right to kill yourself, would you? No. This is only benefiting you. So just do the world a favor and stop being selfish. Ban assault rifles. Think about the future. This isn't just my opinion, this is my job, as a human being. It isn't just a political issue. This is a humanitarian one.
Posted by: Anonymous
Hitler Did the Same Thing
Before Hitler took over his country with the Nazis he banned firearms. He wanted the people to be weak so he could take advantage of them easily. Our constitution was made to protect our rights and decisions not limit them. It is our decision and right to own powerful firearms.
Posted by: AnonymousThe 2nd Amendment Arms You Against Tyrannical Government.
250 years ago the British forces fought with muskets, pistols and swords. The people (patriots) fought against the government with like weapons. The 2nd amendment allows the people to arm themselves in like fashion. If you throw a rock, I am throwing a rock. If you shoot an arrow, I am going to shoot an arrow. If you point an AK47 at me, I will do the same in return. Remember our history.
Posted by: AnonymousGun Rights Must Be Respected.
An assault weapons ban could very well lead to even worse consequences. A black market would probably be formed and armed robberies could go up. A shotgun is slower than a assault weapon, so the robber could easily shoot the person before he could shoot. Plus, lawful citizens will obey the rule, proving that not every person with a gun is crazy.
Posted by: AnonymousAR-15 Rarely Used in Crime
Data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics for 2011 show that long guns, including the AR-15, account for less than 1% of the homicides for the year. You are more likely to be beaten to death than shot and killed with an AR-15. Handguns are far and away responsible for the vast majority of homicides with firearms. While AR-15's look pretty intimidating, they are fairly ineffective except on smaller targets, i.e. bobcat and coyote. Most states won't let you hunt deer with a .223 because of this. It makes little sense to ban AR-15s because someone who is insane has used one to kill humans. Insane people determined to kill will find a means to kill whether it be a handgun, shotgun, fertilizer, gasoline, box-cutters, knives, etc... Taking away a firearm owned by millions of Americans and rarely used in crime will not prevent mass murders from committing murderous acts.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat if our country goes to war, US in invaded and citizens become the target!
What makes anyone think this could not happen? Sure, we would have the military but there would be so much chaos that they would not be able to keep everyone safe. I don't know about you but I certainly would not want to only have a pistol to protect my self with when the enemy is shooting at me with "assault weapons". As far as keeping kids safe it's as simple as educating them about the firearm's dangerous potential and how to properly handle it, but also to keep it stored in a safe. Keeping the firearm in a safe will also reduce the chance it will be stolen and used for illegal purpose.
Posted by: AnonymousNone of your business
Law abiding citizens should be able to choose what firearms they need and/or want. Its none of your (or the govt's) business if I want an AR15 or other semi-auto firearm for whatever lawful purpose. Why are so many people bent on micromanaging everyone else's lives?
Posted by: SouthernGroundcommon sense
most people who are against assault weapons dont understand the differnce between an assault weapon and hunting rifle (very little). my browning bar 2 .270 will fire rounds as fast as i can pull the trigger. so will my mak-90. neither are fully automatic and neither one is more effective at killing humans than the other. if anything, most hunting rifles have fare more range and velocity than the average "assault rifle" that the average american can afford. please understand to own a "terrifyingly evil" full auto weapon, you would have to be wealthy and wealthy people typically dont use them to murder. those against also need to understand that most of us are not wanting americans to own fully auto ak-47's.
the issue is when will it end ? it starts with taking away firearms, then 30 years from now gasoline engines are illegal in cars and we are required by law to pay 50K$+ for an electric car if we expect to drive to work. before you laugh, look around. government is already telling americans they cant buy large sodas in some cities ! evil will always be a part of the human soul, there is nothing that can be done about it. take away the gun, and they WILL find another way.Posted by: AnonymousMy gun my right no debate!
I haven't broken any laws, done nothing wrong, bought everything legally, have been trained, never had any kind of trouble so why should I give up my rights because of someone else? by this logic all you people with children should give them up because people molest children, so you must be going to molest children. the constitution was setup to protect the rights of the individual, not the masses, not the politicians, not business.
Posted by: feedupwiththisThey always fall.
There has never been a society that has had continued success when their people were dis-armed. When the people have had their ability to defend themselves from foreign or domestic threats, they have succumbed to internal or external pressure. Therefore, when the people cannot rely on each other to defend from threats, they become wards of the state and can only progress if the state progresses. On the flip, if the state falls, so will they.
Posted by: AnonymousMy god given right
It is my god given right to defend myself and my family and it is my DUTY to defend the Constitution of The United States. All those who oppose this are the enemy of freedom. Do you not see that this country is crumbling before your very eyes? My eyes have been opened.
Posted by: AnonymousFirearms are not just for home defense, hunting, and target practice..
They are the last defense against tyrany. And if that happens I want to be armed to the teeth! That's why the 2nd amendment was written. Besides, guns of any kind are just tools. Someone has to have a goal and physically pull the trigger for it to do anything. You don't blame spoons for making people fat do you? Guns arent the problem, our death/violence worshipping society is. Start fixing that because laws will never keep the deranged from commiting atrocities. If someone wants to carry out some horrible act, they will find some tool to do so. If more responsible people carried guns, it would make the odds more balanced. In any case, try taking my guns and you are going to have to pry them from my dead hands.
Posted by: MattikeWhy we are given the right
Our forefathers were planning for something like this, this kind of issue is EXACTLY what they were thinking about, when our government takes away freedoms we were guaranteed in our constitution. It is direct proof that our government is trying to gain too much power over its people, the point was for us to be able to stop government tyranny. Therefore we would need equal firepower to do this WHEN it happens, I cannot keep my government in line with a hand gun and a shotgun, weapons equally as powerful as theirs are the only thing that will work. Disgusts me how people can try and say that they didn't include assault weapons in the second amendment.
Posted by: Anonymoustheir's a reason why it's the second amenndment
The right to bear arms against all threats foreign and domestic. We as Americans must carry out this duty to protect us, our family, our property, and our nation. Besides if a fucking lunatic wants to kill a bunch of people it doesn't matter if their's a law to try and stop him.
Posted by: AnonymousAssault weapon is a misleading term
How hard is it to understand that the average 'assault rifle' in America is semi-automatic, can feed no more rounds than any semi-automatic pistol, and has a bullet caliber that is smaller than your average handgun round? It is also harder to conceal, more conspicuous, and no more deadly than any other method of taking human life. We as Americans need to get past this disease of attributing human motives to inanimate objects such as money, drugs, and bullets.
Posted by: AnonymousSue the Psychiatrists
I've owned, fired and hunted with various guns for over 50 years. I've never shot another person. I did pull a 9mm out of a concealed holster to prevent an armed robbery (perp is doing 10 years in Florida State prison). I know lots of gun owners and feel completely safe being around them and their guns. Why? Because they are sane individuals and sane people don't kill other sane people. In every case of mass shootings you have an insane perp. They grab guns, knives, clubs, bombs or what ever to play out their insanity. These people have been to Doctors and Psychiatrists and they have been diagnosed with mental disorders and given psych drugs. Mentally disturbed people should never be allowed to get near a gun. The Psychiatrists and surviving parents should be sued and charged with a crime for allowing the mentally ill person to have access to a gun. Law abiding, sane citizens have a Constitutional right to own and bear arms and this must never be challenged. There are laws on the books covering mentally ill persons having access to guns and there are laws preventing criminals and mentally ill from buying legal guns. Enforce these laws, sue the Psychiatrists and parents. If someone breaks a law using a gun throw the book at them. Don't persecute the law abiding, sane citizen by confiscating their guns.
Steven RPosted by: AnonymousMen are not angels.
Yes guns are meant to kill. That's why the founding fathers made sure we can have them. Our founding fathers recognized that every nation falls at some point and is susceptible to tyranny. While we are are civilized society now and we like to think this could never happen to us - history shows this isn't true. As governments massacre their people in the middle east think of all the examples in the 21st and 20th centuries where government kill "the people". Ask yourself, is human nature any different over there than here?
Posted by: AnonymousCitizens in the United States
Citizens What a tribute this woman paid our Lord! He was full of grace as well as truth; and those who, with unbiased and unprejudiced minds, saw Him moving among men, were constrained to confess His inimitable beauty. Notice that the simplest soul that hears and obeys God’s Word is equally beatified with His mother, Luk_in the United States
Posted by: ApollyonFirst Second Third
The 2nd amendment is in place to stop government from forcing upon the citizens laws that should never be put in place. Look at history and you'll see that disarming the general public has always been one of the steps taken by the government. If gun control worked there would be no deaths in countries that banned their possession by citizens.
Furthermore if you're for gun control you're not against guns because the government will be the ones taking them from you AT GUN POINT. You are for certain people having those guns. (And we know that governments are always just, and honest to citizens right? Why was their a revolutionary war then, a civil war, etc. etc. etc.)Posted by: AnonymousNot at all. They should be able to.
You say we do not "need" them, you are probably correct...We want them.
Who are other people to tell us what we "need" and what we "want." We are told that a simple handgun will suffice for self-defense, and it seems quite alright, but the fact is, the same logic can be applied to other things in life. Why do people "need" a BMW that costs over 60k, when they can just buy a car that costs 10k and gets them from point A to point B safely. The answer is simply, because they can. They don't need a fancy BMW, they want one because the have the money for it.
Anti-gun activists say "The 2nd amendment was written over 250 years ago and does not apply to now" well I will tell you two things, and two things only: first, the same right that allows you to speak against guns is the same right that allows me to speak for gun rights. Second, if that is so, then we obviously do not need: Human Rights, Free Speech, Protection from Self-Incrimination, and many more things that were written such long time ago.
When going about making new laws about "Gun Control" we need to do so with a clear mindset and not with a mind that is corrupt with emotion and illogical thoughts. Lastly, for you Anti-gun activists, I do not mind listening to you for an hour, but when we start talking do not interrupt us or ignore us.
Not all Pro-gun activist are crazies, in-fact, those are just the odd ones out of the crowd.
God Bless America!Posted by: CyrusPolitical leaders not trying hard enough
There is a plethora of evidence that what happened at Sandy Hook, and what happened at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and other notorious mass-shooting locations, was propagated more by the 1st amendment than the 2nd amendment.
Advocates of stripping us of the rights "guaranteed" by the 2nd amendment often like to say that the Founding Fathers could not have predicted the type of weaponry available today. True. But they also could not have predicted 24-hour cable news, Facebook and Twitter, and text messaging, all of which are influencing other disturbed people.
That being said, I would propose stripping the 1st amendment either. The Constitution is not worth the paper it was written on if we don't hold to it in the face of a crisis - especially in the face of a crisis.
Sandy Hook could have occurred with a shotgun or several pistols. It bothers me to see that our political leaders are not really trying to prevent this from happening again, but rather using it as a catalyst to achieve an agenda that will weaken the Constitution and do nothing to prevent another Sandy Hook.Posted by: AnonymousNO BAN
Mentally ill or sick people will find a way to kill no matter what. Most shootings are done by a stolen or illegal weapons. But who do they attack? Legal law abiding gun owners. But yet when one of these sick people shoot up a place they only punish them by slapping the person on the hand and the media blows the whole thing up. I say that anyone who does a shooting we give them a public hanging in front of the court house. Let the media exploit that. Setting a example for anyone that wants to harm innocent people. And leave our GUNS ALONE.
Posted by: AnonymousFear of the people
As much as you tried to hide from the fact, guns exist for more than hunting and protection. George Washington himself said the people need to be armed in order for the government to fear them. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago
Posted by: AnonymousAmerican history has been changed by guns!
If it had not been for guns(and the South Carolina Militia) we would still be under britain. In the uk crime went up 35 percent!
Posted by: AnonymousI've never killed anyone with my assault rifle.
It's true, contrary to the beliefs of some, I've never killed anyone with my "assault" rifle. It does not levitate and it does not speak to me and tell me to do bad things. It only does what the operator tells it to do. I'll digress to dispell some myths about the AR-15. Colt began selling the design to civilians in the 1960's. It is not a machine gun. The bullet it fires (5.56 / .223) is actually quite low powered, designed for the civilian market as "varmit" round. The military adopted the round not for it's death ray like abilities, but because it was "good enough" at combat ranges, and because the ammunition was light weight and soldiers could carry more.
So, why do I own one? Not to hurt children. Because it's no more than criminals have. Because it's similar to the M16 I carried in the Army, so I was familiar with its use and trained to use it. Because if the SHTF, I'd have a better chance of obtaining ammo and parts.
Do I need an AR-15 to protect myself? Not right now and God willing, never, but that doesn't mean there will never be a need. History, should prove that. For those of you who would accuse me of paranoia, well I'm sure alot of Jews who thought about leaving, stayed in Nazi Germany saying to themselves "Naw, I'm just being paranoid." Use your imagination, societal collaspe is just 9 missed meals away. And yes, an armed society is a free society. I don't believe the United States government is tyranical. I won't believe that until I'm denied my right to vote or denied my basic rights. But what better guarantees my vote and rights, the government with unlimited power or an armed free people?
So why the violence? As I stated earlier the AR-15 has been around since the 60's, semi-auto magazine fed rifles, since WW 1. The gun hasn't gotten worse, people have. We have, as a culture, pushed God and morality away. We no longer believe in good or evil, but look to diagnose evil, excuse it and find a pill for it. We have ignored 5000 years of human history and countless cultures that taught us that children need both a mother and a father and children need limits. We have through media of all types become a society that glorifies not only violence but evil.
Getting rid of the AR-15 isn't going to solve our problem. It's not even a start.Posted by: LumpyAn AR-15 ban would be useless
The AR-15 at close range (about 10-50 feet ) is no deadlier than a pistol. In fact, there are even deadlier rifles available that are used for hunting. Having guns is a right of law abiding citizens. Also a magazine ban would do nothing to stop violence, because it only takes a second to reload.
Posted by: AnonymousNo Brainer
Like a person just posted in the other column - "What can you do with AW's that you can't with a handgun?" A great point. Why even bother trying to ban AW's? Criminals will just use handguns. It appears from that logic that nothing would be accomplished, but the next step WOULD be to ban handguns too. If they do the same things as AW's, why not. How many liberals would beg a gun owner to protect them if they were being attacked. Oh sorry, only police can officially provide life and death protection.
Posted by: AnonymousAny object used in an assault is an "assault weapon"
Blaming a rifle for killing people is like blaming forks for making people fat! I have sat next to my rifle for hours and never once has it attempted to load itself or act in a threatening manner.
People need to start realizing that individuals are responsible for their actions regardless of the tools used.Posted by: AnonymousThe bill of rights are to never be changed.
The minute we start taking away our rights this country will no longer be considered free. These rights were made to never be taken away. I don't understand why these un-American people that want to ban guns don't just leave America so that only the true Americans can be left to enjoy the freedoms of this country. To all the liberals: If you don't like it, then leave.....
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are inanimate pieces of metal.
They require the consciousness and actions of living beings to load the bullets, aim and shoot. Otherwise they are held to the earth by gravity.
We should crush all the tools of war and wake up to higher consciousness. If somebody wants to kill, BARE HANDS will do the deed, not to mention all the bats, crow bars, screw drivers, string, spoons you name it. The problem is in the hearts and minds of humanity.Posted by: jcolehaleyBan these first.
Cars that go over 75mph. That is the highest speed limit anywhere isn't it? High speed crashes kill more innocent people than guns. Ban cigarettes. 2nd hand smoke kills more people than guns. Why don't you ban fast food that has msg that causes cancer which kills more innocent people than guns? Do I need to go on?
Posted by: AnonymousStatistics > Optimism
Why is it the government's right to decide for us whether or not we can own assault rifles? I hate to pull out the slippery slope argument but a vast majority of guns are semi-auto and have more than 10 rounds. If a ban on assault rifles occurs, how much longer until it becomes all semi-automatic weapons? The arguments for the ban essentially start and end with "I want the government to hold my security in it's hands." You don't want an assault rifle? No problem - don't buy one. Could an assault rifle do more damage than a pistol? Likely, yes, and certainly faster. But why does anyone think that preventing law abiding citizens from owning assault rifles will help crime? Statistically it doesn't. In a perfect world guns would not exist. I own a gun and I will fight for my right to continue to own one - but it would be preferable to me that there weren't any guns. But that is not the reality. They exist and those who would do harm could do it with or without an assault rifle ban - this ban would punish good people for having done nothing, not the bad ones.
Posted by: AnonymousIs LE ever there when a crime in progress?
First off guns aren't only for personal protection. A lot of families enjoy target shooting and spending family time together. That is something that has declined in the US, the family. Part of protecting our children, is teaching them how to handle a firearm and teaching them safety.
2nd, the 2nd amendment. You can say we don't need guns because we are civilized. But look at all the civilized countries that have taken rights of any type away from their citizens. They are either now a monarchy, socialist, or communist nation. We have the right to our firearms to prevent a wacko leader from taking over complete power.
If they start taking away one of our rights how soon will it be before they start taking away our other rights? The first amendment is already under attack. Same with a true freedom of religion. Christians are some of the most discriminated against.
As far as eliminating guns to completely eliminating gun violence? Pull your head out of the ground. Timothy McVeigh went to Home Depot and purchase everything he needed to make a bomb. Last time i check, Bombs are illegal too but people can still get there hands on them. Taking away guns would only leave the criminals with guns, leaving a CCW holder with no way to defend himself or YOU or YOUR FAMILY.
Also, have you guys every shot or seen an AR, AK or anything else you might think is an assault rife? Or are you scared to handle this horrible creation? Did your parents teach you about guns?Posted by: AnonymousWhy stop at guns?
The violence permeating our society today is out of control! We need to take immediate action and we shouldn't stop with guns. We should ban these cars with more than 300 horsepower, their sole purpose is to drive dangerously and recklessly, they have no place in 21st century America. Also no one needs to have a dog that weighs more than 60 pounds. Pitbulls, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds were only bred to injure and kill other dogs and people. We need to get these mindless killing machines off our streets. Also whats with chainsaws? I can't imagine when someone would ever need to cut down a tree. These need to go as well. If money is the root of all evil, let's put a cap on how much money you can have too. Nobody needs more than 100,000 dollars, that's ridiculous. We should even ban sarcasm.(see what I did there?) Come on people this is stupid!!! This is the land of the free and home brave! Not because someone passed a law, but because people armed themselves and stood up for what the believe in. I believe that no one in this country has the right to tell me what I can have or what I can buy especially when it comes to mine or my family's safety.
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals do not follow laws or care about the "assault weapon" bans.
How can you propose a ban on guns that will hurt those that follow the law more than criminals?. Meanwhile criminals keep and buy these guns and magazines on the street in the black market. As with the 1994-2004 assault weapon ban, it was proven to be ineffective. This new proposed legislation will not be reducing street crime and senseless mass shootings, or even targeting most of the individuals who commit these crimes. Why isn't legislation being pushed going toward the criminal? Stiffer penalties for having an illegal gun and full prosecution with mandatory sentences for those that break the current laws. We need to make these criminals fear being caught with a gun or suffer strict consequences.
Posted by: Anonymous93% of Firearms deaths inflicted by Handguns
93% of all firearms related deaths result from the use of a handgun. Handguns are preferred by criminals in that they are easily concealed and hidden from law enforcement. Banning rifles of any kind, ie. assault weapons, will have little to no effect on overall firearms related homicides. The progressive agenda is not designed to prevent homicide related deaths, but rather to disarm the populace or to relegate to the populace inferior firearms to those possessed by the government.
Posted by: AnonymousNo way
If you actually take you time and read the comments below, it's pretty straight forward and nothing else I could think of that has not already been addressed. Other than that I repeat, what many have already said, the 2nd Amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed upon." It states nothing about hunting. It's black and white, no other way to interpret that.
Posted by: AnonymousTwo words, "self defense."
Might I remind all of you "anti assault weapon" people, about the LA riots in 1992. Korean shops were being looted by multiple assailants, and had they not had so called "assault weapons" they would have been overrun and killed. I might also share a personal story of the time that my friends 80 year old father was attacked during a home invasion back in 2005. There was at least 6 people involved and he happened to have a Colt LE6920 AR15 with a few loaded 30 round magazines. The attackers were all armed with knives and blunt objects, i.E. Baseball bats, crow bars, etc. And would have easily killed this 80 year old man had he not had an assault rifle. He ended up shooting and killing 2 of them, and holding the other 2 after disarming them until the police arrived. You tell me. Do we need assault rifles? Well its better to have them and not need them, then to need them but not have them.....
Posted by: AnonymousThere are a lot of illegal things that kill people
Drug abuse, both legal and illegal. Drunk driving. Wait a minute. Maybe this will open your eyes and take the blinders off. Child abuse is illegal yet over three million reports of child abuse are made every year. Child abuse KILLS an average of 5 children every day! Well that is illegal isn't it? Does that make it not happen? All that stuff listed is illegal and it still happens! It will be the some if more laws are made against and banning any gun. Any crime where a criminal uses a gun will continue just like all the other stuff including child abuse killing five children a day continues regardless of any laws prohibiting it. Wake the heck up people!
Posted by: AnonymousClueless people
I just think that people love to ban the evil looking guns. They kill just like any other gun. Lets not play games here, guns were made to kill. Now if its a 30 round mag or a 5 round mag makes no difference. AK-47 or a 30-06 who cares. I have taking deer with an AK and AR-15. Its like saying do not buy a sports car because it looks fast so something bad is going to happen. An Honda Accord still can do 100 mph on the highway. If people want an AR-15 or AK or what ever , and they can legally own a gun so what. When are people/Goverment going to stop telling others what kind of gun they can own? The same people want to tell you that you can't buy more then a 16 oz soda because you will get fat. Lets get something straight our Founding father did not put the right to bear just for survival(as 21 Century stated) . Slaves are made of man that just want to survive. Its about freedom. That is what makes this country great. The freedom to choose If you want to own a gun or not. The Assault rifle , as they call it (I do not own an full auto weapon that is an real assault rife)should be a chose that the person buying it should make not the Government.
Posted by: bobswagger71I want my self-defense to be mine.
Guns are simply tools, albeit the single most effective tool yet designed, to stop a human size attacker in mid attack. I would like to have the best tool for the job of protecting my family from the evils present in this world, most often of the two legged and armed incarnation.
Posted by: AnonymousGUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!
If I am out hunting and suddenly I realize I am surrounded by a pack of 15 wolves, and I am dinner to them, I want to have a reliable gun, with at least a 30 round clip to defend myself. With a regular rifle I would be dead because I would have 1-6 shots, and about a 10-60 second reload rate.
Posted by: 14MiLonThere are several reasons why we should possess "assault" weapons
One person from the other side said there is no sporting purpose. That is not true they can easily be used in marksmenship competitions,three gun matches, and yes hunting. Some people do use their AR-15s and AK-47s to hunt where the state law allows it. Also I believe that the founding fathers meant for the citizens to have the same level of small arms technology as the formal military. So by this standard the BATF should actually deregulate not only fully automatic weapons but also short barreled rifles and surpressors (silencers for you hollywood folk) as well as some explosive devices. As such with some gov. funded training a citizen could be nearly as effective as a US soldier if a scenario like red dawn no matter how unlikely happened. Remember an armed society is a polite society and places like chicago is proof of this. They have a high degree of regulation over most firearms yet they also have a high crime rate.
Posted by: AnonymousIf you don't like the Constitution, then change it the right way
It guarantees the people the right to keep and bear arms. No one will tell you you do't have the right to protect yourself and your family but they somehow think they can tell you what you may use. The so called assault weapons are no different functionally than many of semi-automatic firearms which are not considered assault weapons. The politicians know that the majority of gun crime is not committed with a rifle, assault or otherwise, so they're just blowing smoke.
Posted by: AnonymousNot going to change a thing!
I tell you what's going to happen when they ban assault rifles and high capacity mags. The next crazy person is going to do it with a pistol with only 10 bullets, but just carries 5 clips which in the end sadly is going to be the same result. I understand background checks etc., but taking away assault rifles is not going to solve the problems.
Posted by: AnonymousSo the police and criminals should only have assault rifles?
Banning assault rifles gives criminals more power. Is that what you really want to do? Leave my life up to potentially corrupt cops and aggressive criminals. No! Cops don't save lives! They attempt to find the suspect after the murder. I'd rather have an assault rifle because its my right and if I have to use it, I'm eliminating the threat.
Posted by: AnonymousCommon sense
Guns don't kill people, people kill people and if you think that is limited to "assault rifle?" Then you have another thing coming. Some of the most brutal slayings in this country have been with a knife or some other blunt instrument. These instruments are also more silent than their seemingly more dangerous counterparts. How many days would it take for someone to find a murder victim whose throat had been sliced open silently in the night? They say the first 48 hours of a murder are the most crucial to finding the assailant however with this situation he is long gone with little evidence left to link him. You would hear a murder or attempted murder with a firearm even with a suppressor. Just start thinking about what you would rather have to protect yourself and your loved ones with should someone break into your house? A weapon with superior firepower and the skill to use it, or your idealistic views that these people inherently are good inside and don't want to hurt anyone? Michael caine said it best in the movie the dark knight, "some men just want to watch the world burn." Think about it.
Posted by: AnonymousMissing the boat
Most supporters of the assault weapons ban listen to the liberal media and don't know what an assault weapon is, you read half the arguments for supporting the ban and they say why do you need fully automatic guns anyways . The assault weapons ban has nothing to do with fully automatic guns those have been banned since the 1920s or 1930s. The assault weapons ban is going off what a gun looks like and is played up by a few senators that are playing off the fear of uninformed Americans.
Posted by: AnonymousKill as many people as possibly as quickly as possible?
I keep hearing this argument about these so-called assault rifles. If that's true, why aren't the gun banners outraged that these are becoming standard issue for civilian police departments? Do they need to "kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible?" In most departments marksmanship is mostly a lost art. That's why high capacity magazines are standard issue. To foster a "spray and pray" mentality. You guys should be outraged about this. But I suppose in a police state we should accept that the police need anything they want.
Posted by: AnonymousNo Such Thing As Assault Weapon
First of all, Adam Lanza didn't use an AR-15, and an AR-15 wasn't even found at the scene. The police reported finding 4 pistols. So, get your facts right. Anyone that knows anything about weapons knows that it only takes a second to change out a clip or magazine, so the size of the magazine is irrelevant. Disarm the public and the police or federal government can violate every right you were given in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That was the whole purpose of the second amendment; to prevent tyrannical governments or power hungry politicians. Liberals are too stupid to understand that the government will take your freedom to spew that crap you call speech out of your free mouths. Go ahead and insult all the fallen Soldiers that died to allow you to spew your dumb talk out of your mouth. If you don't like guns, then don't buy one. Put a sign in your yard that says you don't like or own guns, and just wait for the criminals with guns; who could care less about laws; to come rob your house in the middle of the day while you are at home. :)
Posted by: AnonymousNo, I disagree; not only no but hell no.
I will keep my firearms (assault weapons) regardless of the law, call it civil disobedience. If the government comes to take them the representatives of that government will be my enemy and I will do all in my power to stop them. This includes deadly force. It is time for gun owners to step up and be ready to fight if necessary or we will surely lose this struggle. Ten million gun owners is a force Obama is terrified of. Ten million gun owners armed and ready is his worst nightmare. Why the 450 million hollow point bullets purchased for FEMA? Why the questioning of army officers asking if they will kill Americans? This administration is out of control. God help us if we lose the right to assault weapons.
Posted by: AnonymousBanning guns is un-American
I am an American. As such, none of my rights depend on a showing of need. I am a free man who has the right to define and pursue my happiness in any peaceful way I see fit. The government does not grant me rights. I was born free. The legitimate role of government is to act as my agent to protect my rights; which exist independent of government. Americans do not beg the government for rights nor are they required to demonstrate a "need" for rights.
Posted by: AttorneyForFreedomMonopoly of power
Government is ruled by men and mankind is inherently corrupt. Government should never hold a monopoly on the use of force. Throughout human history it was not individuals who commit genocide or filled mass graves. Such things are an organized affair. People can argue all they want about Civilians not being able to stand up to a modern army. They dont have to. any regime bent on physical abuse of a nations people who possess arms will commit political suicide in the process.
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George WashingtonPosted by: Anonymous/
I think that the government should not try to take away assault rifles if you don't know how to handle one then don't get one. I don't think any one other than myself should be able to tell me what a own. This takes away our right to arm ourselves. So if you can't handle it don't get it.
Posted by: AnonymousSemi-auto are not assault weapons
ATF classifies select-fire weapons as 'Assault Weapons' only. And those are already heavily regulated. They are also tools. We need to keep tools out of the hands of those that are mentally ill. We are not calling for the ban of Assault SUVs or Assault Motorcycles due to all the fatalities those cause.
Posted by: Anonymous"If nothing else, the 2nd amendment gives citizens a chance against tyrannical government"
If you are not willing to fight and die for your basic human rights, then you are already dead. If you don't understand why people buy "assault rifles" then you are a fool, and the coming strife will cleanse the fools from this land. The founding fathers were a heck of a lot smarter than any American today. They faced tyranny every day. Soon the foolish will be afraid and angry at the government, by then it will bee too late for them.
Posted by: AnonymousPower tends to corrupt but absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I think that this is just a stepping stone for further and more restrictive government control. We have the right as free citizens to keep weapons for self defense. Why would you want to take our weapons in the first place? Statistics show assault weapon deaths are minuscule. That is all
Posted by: AnonymousOne more law for lawbreakers to break!
The problem of mass killings has been around since the dawn of man. Guns were not the issue in ancient Egypt when millions died at the hands of oppressors. They weren't the issue during the Crusades. They weren't the issue in 1927 in Bath Michigan. They didn't have assault rifles in the clock tower in 1966. They weren't used by Charles Manson. Here's an idea....dangerously sick people are dangerous. Work on curing them and not just medicating them and putting them back on the street! Stop making mental health such taboo subject. Get people the help they need. Real help, not just lip service. You will see mass killings go down with or without your new ban.
Posted by: AnonymousNo
Of course nobody wants to see people shot in the streets or killed by any other method. The problem here is not the object (the gun) it's the behavior (shooting people). Certainly the behavior, and very often the object, are already illegal. The law hasn't stopped the shootings. Bad people will always do bad things. By protecting the people's right to arms the government is giving good people the opportunity to defend themselves.
"Assault rifles" as defined by CA for example, are some of the most common hunting rifles used today. So for those that say they have no other use, you are incorrect. They are light, easy to carry, and have good ergonomics. They are also far less powerful than traditional hunting rifles.Posted by: AnonymousThe question is simple, What firepower should a citizen legally have to defend against an armed attacker.
It seems all right to use the victims of the Sandy Hook murder spree as foundation to the anti gun arguments.
Well....
Please, just go to Google and read the details of the Charles Manson murders of Sharon Tate and her friends. Then ask yourself, as Sharon Tate was trying to avoid being murdered and you could freeze time, then ask Sharon these 2 simple question:
Sharon, which gun would you like, a revolver with 6 rounds or a Glock with a high capacity 13 round magazine.....Oh by the way how many bullets would you like, 7, as in New York,... Or as many bullets as it takes to defend yourself against being murdered and to defeat your attackers?
We all know, not only was she butchered, but her unborn baby in her womb was also viciously murdered by the gang of murderers who have entered her home.
Semi automatic rifles who share mechanical heritage with military versions, represent the best in quality firearms for durability, dependability, and ease of use.
Simply why would anybody who is concerned about their 2nd amendment right to bear arms for defense....Not choose an "assault rifle"...To own anything else seems...... One would not be making the best choice and selection.Posted by: AnonymousBanning the Armalite rifle 15 is not the answer (What AR really stands for)
Putting a Band-Aid on the problem is not the solution. Look at the flow of illegal drugs into the country, we’ve been fighting this for years. Ban guns and you’ll have to same problem. How about illegal immigrants, how’s that going, it’s not. Guns are here to stay, sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but there are millions of them out there, and no matter how many laws you pass, they will still be there. Just like illegal drugs and illegal immigrants.
Posted by: AnonymousGun Free Zones Makes For A Target Rich Environment
The reason that these mass killings are happening in the Gun Free Zones is the shooters know that there will be no one to appose them..at least for a short while. Seems like whenever they are opposed by equal of greater force they shoot themselves in the head. The only gun death rates that are climbing are mass shooting in Gun Free Zones. All other gun crime rates have been dropping in part due to conceal and carry laws. Criminals do not want to take the chance of coming up against an armed citizen. The government is using this situation to do a gun grab if it can.
Posted by: AnonymousThey are safe in the right hands.
Think about this: A normal sane person would not stick a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger nor walk out in front of a swat team brandishing a weapon nor walk into a crowd of civilians and start shooting.The problem is not guns but mental illness issues. Yes there has to be accountability for owning a firearm. Yes owning a gun is a huge responsibility. But for a government and a misinformed public to have a knee-jerk reaction and take away my rights to own a firearm is not sane either. so long as I conduct myself in safe respectable manner with said firearm.
Posted by: AnonymousPeople against government Hitlers
I like how Sons Of Anarchy writer and producer Kurt Sutter states he believes there should be a gun ban and the NRA is a problem. On the other hand he makes a living writing a show about "felon" biker gangs selling and buying firearms on the black market! People of the United States we need to stand up again these government Hitlers who want to take away our freedoms! I'm a very reasonable gun owner!
Posted by: Anonymousguns don't kill, people do
How many incidents have occurred when an assault weapon was used. The crazy libs talk like it is every day. These sheep may someday be saved by a law abiding gun owner from the wolves who are coming. It's time to put the blame on the ones who kill not the weapons that are used. The same idiots who call for these bans also excuse the killers for bad potty training. Let's get real.
Posted by: AnonymousAssault Weapons Are Not That Unique
Assault weapons function exactly the same way as any other semiautomatic weapon: you fire a round for every time you pull the trigger without having to cock the gun. The only difference between a standard semiautomatic weapon and an assault weapon is that the latter has a different design which makes it "stand out" for military personnel use. Regardless of the case, any individual that cares about protecting the life of one's self and loved ones should be allowed to own "assault weapon(s)".
Posted by: skepstarI'm afraid there is no good argument...
This argument over bans on assault rifles is a visceral one and always well be because it's based in fear. Such weapons, especially the rifles, LOOK intimidating. Somehow hunting rifles "appear friendlier". But I put to anyone that a wooden stock pump shotgun is every bit as deadly as one that has a synthetic stock and a pistol grip. Likewise, I have seen SKS rifles fitted with beautiful wooden stocks, high powered scopes that grant the weapon an ability to be a very proficient hunting rifle...and it looks every bit the part. Yet take that same weapon, fit it with a poly-carbon synthetic stock with a folding folding or telescoping butt stock and a pistol grip and it becomes "an assault weapon"...strictly by looks, when in truth it fires a round that is about the size and power of a Winchester or Marlin 30.30 lever action rifle...a weapon considered to be a "brush rifle".
To that end, I am exceptionally capable with my SKS. I can create shot groups with iron sites at 200 meters/yards about the size of my fist - more than adequate to kill a deer or medium sized prey. Conversely, I have a rough time obtaining that tight a shot group with my friends lever action 30.30. So to that end, my SKS, to me, is a more effective rifle for hunting than would be a true "hunting rifle".
And as that goes, I've SEEN carbine versions of the 30.30 complete with a telescoping poly-carbonate stock, tactical sights, ammunition holder in the stock, etc...and it's suddenly been transformed into an "assault weapon"...a weapon that would ordinarily be considered a mundane hunting rifle.
This legislation and other legislation like it is designed and tailored by those who do not own guns and those who do not understand or have never used a firearm to say that ALL firearms can be dangerous. And this is true. ANY firearm can be dangerous...ANY firearm can be intimidating or modified to LOOK intimidating. But in most instances, you should be less afraid of the weapon and more afraid of the person wielding it.
I'm no hunter...haven't hunted in years. But I can with my SKS, even though it's an "assault weapon". I've never shot at anyone nor would I consider doing so unless it was in the defense of my home or my country. As a former military member, I am trained in the use of a firearm and have the utmost respect for them. So whom would you rather own a firearm? And who do you think is going to be more likely to use it against another human being? Me, an individual trained in the use of firearms, and specifically trained most with what would be considered an "assault weapon"? Or the individual just down the street from me who recently got arrested while on bath salts and had just thrown a loaded AR15 into bushes just as the police arrived? Yes, that's a true story.
My weapon will likely never see the light of day except on those occasions when I bring it to the range to make sure I keep myself proficient in its use and maintenance. That individual was walking down the STREET with that weapon...only about five houses down from me. Yet you would tell me that I am not entitled to own equal fire power to protect myself from people like this. And given his state of mind and his ability (and propensity) to obtain and use drugs, do you *really* think that obtaining and using an illegal firearm bothers him all that much? I can tell you it would bother me a great deal more if I were not equally armed as I am quite certain I have the good common sense of knowing WHEN and HOW to use such a weapon and would never even consider bringing it out while my judgement was so impaired.
Putting all of that aside, as has been mentioned throughout this thread, the second amendment was designed with the purpose to protect ourselves FROM our own government if necessary. That was every bit its intent. Firearms have always played a role in our lives. Given in the times of the colonies they served the role of providing food as well. But make no mistake, they were as much for protection as providing food. If you don't believe our founding fathers put such an explicit rule in place to preserve our rights to bear arms, then I put to you the following quotes:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - written into the Declaration of Independence
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem", literally translated as "I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude." - Thomas Jefferson
"All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist the government when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable." - Henry David Thoreau
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason
And finally...
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington
And there are many, many more. Our founding fathers were clear on this. We've allowed our government to interfere in every aspect of our lives in such an inextricable way as it's going to take generations to untangle it. One can only hope that through the common sense of our voting public and our ability to come to agreement through debate and understanding of one another's positions that we might elect into roles of leadership people who will have the best interests of our people at heart and will act accordingly to reinstate smaller governmental roles and leave the citizen to their freedom and own pursuits. If not, then this argument to ban weapons falls in keeping with the same sorts of legislature that would strip us of other rights...pieces of legislature that are being introduced every day to restrict our free movement in our own country, restrict how we live our lives, what we eat or drink, how we work our own lands, what we can or cannot own (within reason)...even what we say.
No, our founding fathers knew what they were doing and why they were doing it. We should never be afraid of our government. Our government should be afraid of us - that was by design.Posted by: CliffAre you wiser then Plato?
Before we start jumping to conclusions about guns in this country, I think we should all take a look at the wise words of Plato on laws and governing people.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.Posted by: AnonymousHow much self-defense am I allowed? I'll decide.
If I'm protecting my life and family, and it turns into a gun battle, how slowly should I have to fire and how often should I have to reload? How much extra danger should I be in? I can only conclude that those who would restrict what I can own don't care if I and my family live or die. Well, back at ya, pal.
Posted by: AnonymousOur Nations Father said this:
George Washington said, "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes."
Posted by: AnonymousLook at the OKC bombing...
If someone wants to hurt people they will always find a way to, guns are just easy to utilize in such terrible acts. Look vat Oklahoma city, the guy used manure as a device for murder. Banning guns would reduce peoples ability to hurt others but would not remove it.
Posted by: Anonymous2nd Ammendment
Thousands of military personnel have given their lives to protect our rights as American citizens. To infringe on those rights would be to dishonor those sacrifices. Why not ban knives and baseball bats as well? It just doesn't make any sense to restrict law abiding citizens from protecting themselves while criminals aren't going to obey the laws anyway.
Posted by: AnonymousAmericans have the right to bear arms in our Constitution, and this right should never be taken, as it ensures our democratic society.
All weapons that exist should be allowed to be possessed by an American. Having a weapon doesn't correlate with using the weapon. If good people can't possess them, the criminals and law enforcement still will, only leaving those without them vulnerable to any type of force from the parties that do still possess them. Additionally, we as Americans have the right to revolt if we no longer are given our rights, and I believe that is necessary to maintaining a just democratic society. Power tends to rule the mind of man, and too much power in one place is a very bad thing.
Posted by: daveyxhNO NO NO
I firmly believe that anyone who says that these types of weapons should be banned are and in fact boring people. Feel bad about your self. Please do. You are boring, face the fact. No one likes you. Go out and shoot an assault rifle at the range. See how it changes your perspective on life. See how it makes you happy. Feel the power. Its an amazing thing to experience. If you don't like shooting these guns at targets then you are just weird. Get out of here if youre not about that life. You are no man if you don't like to shoot guns.
Posted by: AnonymousUnconstitutional, illogical, senseless, un-American.
The second amendment was formed so that if the government turned from a democracy to a tyranny, the people would have the means to overwhelm their government and usher in a new, just government. Period. There is no time limit to this ideal, it is absolutely not specific to any time period and there are no exceptions. The British used muskets, the population in 1776 used muskets. In 2013, the government uses all manner of assault weapons. We the people have the right, the need, and the responsibility to keep on par so in a time of crisis, we can respond as a free and just people. Is it unfortunate that weapons, assault or not, have been abused? Absolutely. Is banning the right to own these weapons the solution? Not in the slightest. The American population as a whole does not deserve, and the government does not have the right, to disarm it's citizens based on the actions of a few that will ultimately affect the many. This is absolutely a situation where the good of the many triumphs, and there are less radical and dim witted ways to handle who gets their hands on a gun and mows down an elementary school. Screening, loosening gun laws to encourage more responsible users to purchase weapons, thereby lowering significantly the chances that someone will expect to commit mass murder and get away with it, the list goes on. This, limiting the rights given to you by the constitution, is nothing short of illegal and utterly immoral.
Posted by: AnonymousThe issue is beyond poisoned though...
No, but there are also man other extremes we do not need to go to as a reaction to any mass shooting or event; IE, claiming it is practical or possible to force those who do not want guns to bear arms 24/7, in every possible location. We have missed the point on both sides, must find a solution to our cultural problems & deeper causes. Banning guns, we have missed that boat anyways. If people aim to kill, they certainly will, but we need to go about the debate with some common sense. I am for gun ownership, but on this side of the fence I become baffled by how many people claim that they are certain that the answer to gun violence is always having a gun in every possible circumstance, as if we are all John McClane from Die Hard. Certainly pushing this could backfire if something worse did ensue, and still would not answer the question.
Posted by: AnonymousNo
Freedom to buy, sell, and own objects should not be lost for a false sense of security. As long as their are sticks, stones, hands, feet, and humans there will be crime/war. Before there were guns, people killed each other with blades, clubs before that, rocks before that, and hands before that. The people that voted yes have no idea what the real world is like, they read, or watch fiction, and think they can reason with the most violent species that has ever walked on this Earth. The 2nd Amendment was never about hunting, it was always about defense. Defense of one's self, defense of the people from foreign, and domestic threats. You people that vote yes, how about this, I won't force my Christian morals on you if you don't force your socialist utopia on me. My "assualt rifles" (semi auto rifles that only look like military assualt rifles BTW) have killed no one, I have owned these types of firearms my whole life, and in fact the only time that I have killed someone with a assault rifle was while my time as a 11B in the US Army while on my deployments in Iraq, and A-Stan. When the last human dies, that is when you will have a peacful Earth!
Posted by: AnonymousWhy? Because people don't "need" them?
The next bill presented to legislation should outlaw any vehicle capable of traveling above 90 mph. People say they want one because they are "fun". Shooting assault weapons at a range is "fun". You can not legally drive a lotus at 150 mph on any public street in the US. So why do we need them?
Posted by: AnonymousNo reason for assault weapons in the civilized world? How about in the middle east...
Politicians including Obama, and people across the world have been heralding the Arab spring as fights for democracy and have applauded those fights.
They have been and are fighting those battles with all kinds of weapons including assault weapons.
So what if they did not have assault weapons?
No fight for democracy.
Dictators still in power.
Tyranny forever.
Wake up. Smell the coffee.
And think about it.Posted by: Anonymouslife liberty and the pursuit of happiness
im mighty happy when i shoot my AR15 AT A RANGE. in addition to all the second amendment protection. the constitution should protect my ability to the above unless i infringe on the ability of others to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. there is a violence problem of sorts but that doesnt mean you can restrict my rights.
Posted by: AnonymousMy rights to defend myself and my family
If we dont have these weapons how will I defend my family against the threats this unstable world faces? It's a defense weapon and a semi auto is technically a rifle not on assault rifle so why are they both labeled under assault rifle when there is a clear difference . It's just big brother trying to control its citizens . Just becuase a few lunatics shoot up a public place doesn't mean you should take guns from law abiding citzens. The criminals are still gana get them I mean look at fast and furious obama administration sold thousands of weapons to the cartel and no one has been prosecuted for this and it has caused the death of many border potrol officers and it's just swept under the rug
Posted by: Marlonsmith713criminals don't follow gun laws
Alcohol prohibition was a blood bath, just imagine gun prohibition. Sandy Hook already was a strict gun zone, Chicago is the gun murder cap. Of the world and they have some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Obama got caught shipping assault rifles to thugs in mexico that killed people, some our people. Obama cries about sandy hook but he is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of little kids in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, etc..I think anti gun people are the same over emotional morons reincarnated from alcohol prohibition.
Posted by: dredcrumbNo, assault rifles shouldn't be banned.
Even if assault rifles are banned, it won't change anything. By that I mean, there will still be shootings out there. They still need guns, for self defense purposes, but there should be a gun license to be able to own an assault rifle. Without a gun license, people can only own Handguns or Tasers for self defense.
Posted by: AnonymousDon't penalize me for the sins of others
I lost an uncle, that I never got to know because of an irresponsible drunk driver. It devastated multiple generations of my family and changed them forever. I never see people wanting to ban alcohol or cars when thousands are killed by them each year, including innocent children. These tragedies speak more to the downfall of our society and family unit more than methods or objects used in killing the innocent.
Posted by: AnonymousGun Control Trivia: the 2nd amendment
Gun Control Trivia: the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or collecting or target practice, it's intent was and is to preserve the right of the people to protect themselves, to form an armed citizenry (miltia) and protect their individual rights, their property, their community, and their constitution from enemies foreign or domestic. The amendment does not grant rights because the rights existed by "natural law" prior to the constiution. History proves that gun control has been the method commonly deployed by oppressive governments and groups whose desire is to dominate people against their will. Our own history shows us that when the constitution was penned, it was the vision of our founders that citizens would be armed to the same degree as any military force of the day. History also demonstrates that an armed citizenry can not be easily subjugated by criminals or a hostile government.
Posted by: AnonymousThat's so retarded.
People need to understand that these weapons were mainly made to wound with nonexpanding bullets. 223 shoots a 22 caliber projectile. You could even begin to understand how horrifying these killings would have been if done with a twelve gauge shot gun in close quarters. People need to know more about guns before speaking. Just like the vice-president it takes no time to reload a double barrel shot and it will kill way more people with each shot.
People need to remember our right are to protect us from the government and they are constantly changing what a military weapon is. All guns are military guns. Stand up for the right to protect ourselves from the government!Posted by: AnonymousGuns are not the problem
Mental care is the problem. Its terrible! Principles should be allowed to have a weapon or spend the money to get a security guard, and doors to the classrooms should be locked. Its a simple fix people! Take away guns and only criminals will have them. Heaven help all of us if the government throws out the 2nd amendment!
Posted by: Anonymousno Constitutional guarantee??
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." let's look at that again: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
this is not only for personal protection, or protection from an outside threat, but also to protect ourselves from a government that gets out of control. Gee was the patriot act out of control? Do you want to bee sheep? safe inside a gilded cage? look there are are I agree gun nuts who go way overboard but still, you disarm the people you control the peoplePosted by: AnonymousLet's look at what Supreme Court has to say about that.
We all heard the million reasons why assault weapons ban is bad, but what I would like to point out is that it is unconstitutional. In Supreme Court Decision of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), Supreme Court has argued that Second Amendment Protects the right of people to own weapons "of the kind in common use at the time". Supreme Court upheld it's decision again in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), where Supreme Court declared DC ban on handguns as unconstitutional on the grounds that Second Amendment right to bear arms belongs to individuals not States exclusively; therefore, based on previous arguments used in U.S. v. Miller, handguns being arms that are in common use at the time are therefore protected by United States Constitution.
So called "assault rifles" are weapons that are in common use by the military, law enforcement, state & federal agencies and law abiding citizens respectively. Regardless of how anyone feels about "assault rifles" they are protected by Second Amendment. The Supreme Court is bound to uphold it's previous decisions by the rule of precedent. If "assault weapons ban" would be signed into law it will certainly be challenged in courts and will is likely to be struck down as unconstitutional based on previous decisions.Posted by: AnonymousTo Protect Yourself From Criminals, To Include Goverment
The 2nd amendment was made to arm the American people against criminals and to give citizens the capacity to take up arms against a tyrannical government if necessary. Like when we overthrew Britain to gain our freedom. Yes we live in a new age, and with a new age comes new weapons... You can't fight if you don't have the tools for the deed.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill people. People kill people.
So many other guns can do just as much "assaulting"... why pick on this one? Just because it LOOKS dangerous? The people that are anti-assault weapons usually have no training in these firearms at all, or any firearms for that matter. People need to stop looking at the surface-deep statistics actually dig deeper to see how important it is to have all kinds of firearms in the country.
Taking away the most popular gun in the Unites States from law-abiding citizens is just so...ignorant! How do you think criminals get their hands on weapons, especially these types of weapons? They don't go to establishments where background checks are done. They get them off the street, the black market. Disarming the public is...just that. Disarming the public.
And yes, the AR-15 is easy to use. It would be very easy to assault someone with because of its compactness with powerful 5.56-.223 round and hi-cap mag. But let's remember the 2nd Amendment's ACTUAL purpose. To be able to stand up to a tyrannical government if that is ever to be the case. How would we ever be able to stand up with a chance of fighting with a freaking 10/.22?
Keep this country stronger, safer, and more trustworthy by keeping the power in the hands of the people.Posted by: AnonymousWTF
Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Lets stop taliking about taking guns out of the hands of good people and start talking about what we can do to protect good people. Armed guards in our nations schools is a great idea and I support the NRA. If bad people with guns knew they get their heads blown off at a school they wouldn't go shot up a school.
Posted by: Anonymous"Assault Weapon" is a made-up term ; Guns are the real goal
First, no one needs to demonstrate they "need" something. The onus is on the person looking to restrict someone's rights. Second, 90% of so-called "assault weapons," the most popular rifles in the country included, are used for recreation, not to kill people or mount an assault. Moreover, the typical user of an "assault weapon" is married, been to college, and at least 35 years old--not some psycho kid who's a registered Democrat too (see Longer, Holmes, Lanza, etc).
Posted by: JT651Self defense
If there is a weapon in the hands of a criminal that can be used against a citizen, that citizen should have the legal right to that same weapon. I don't want to find myself pointing a single shot pistol at a home invader that has an AK47 pointing back at me. Nor do I want to wait for the police to take him down. Either of those situations has me and my family dead.
Posted by: AnonymousI like my AR-15. I think it's an ideal tool for home defense.
The fact that it has a flash suppressor might even be helpful say at night during a home invasion with multiple attackers. I would surely feel better with at least a 20 round magazine and a stock that adjusts for my comfort. Does that make me a bad person? The constitution says I can keep and bear arms. Why shouldn't I be able to choose a gun that functions comfortably and accurately? There is already a law that covers this school shooting it's called murder. But the evil man that committed this horrible act killed himself so there's nobody to punish.It's frustrating because I'm pretty sure this guy chose to kill defenseless children in a place where he knew there would be no armed opposition. I'm an American,in the land of the free and home of the brave. I'd like it to stay that way. The founding fathers understood the need for a well armed militia(Us the American people). It was important enough to make it second on the list.To protect yourselves and loved ones from enemies foreign and domestic. The government and police can't always be there for you. Even if it weren't for the Constitution I'd still have the right to defend myself and my loved ones and I defy anyone to tell me that I can't.
Posted by: AnonymousA No-Brainer For Those Of Us That "Get It"...
Criminals, violent mentally ill people, or just blatantly mean cruel people, will get guns regardless of whether or not they are banned or not. Making something illegal has never stopped anyone from attaining it, ex. marijuana. Regardless of the size of a gun magazine, or the type of gun or 'weapon' (remember the infamous 'Box Cutters' that ultimately killed 3000 people on 9/11/01 - so wouldn't that constitute a box cutter as being a weapon?) the sick, twisted violent people with a prime directive of ultimately killing innocent people because they have been bullied, or their god promised them virgins, or they ultimately cannot separate Reality from Fiction (as in gaming), these people are going to get Weapons - and not just guns. Handing over our guns, or relinquishing our right to have guns is ONLY giving the government more power over us to potentially enhance the Big Brother Issue that we already have in place. Thus making us at an even higher risk of becoming a Socialist Military Country (think Germany in the '40's)...Basically, criminals and the mentally corrupt individuals will always have guns - and just how corrupt do you think our own government is? Power ultimately corrupts, and if the government is the 'only' people that can bear arms, then those of us that are sane, and mentally competent are the people that deserve to have guns to protect ourselves from the criminals and the corrupt crazies. So, Mental Health should be the primary focus. As well as people that know of others who have 'joked' about pulling off some crazy assault - if they don't warn the proper authorities, should they not be held in some kind of capacity for not reporting that they knew of the threat? Isn't that a type of aiding and abetting? It isn't the guns that kill - it IS the mental health of the person with the gun in their hand. Stop passing the buck off to the gun companies, otherwise i can think of thousands of weapons that should be banned...including the vase that is holding the flowers beside my bed. MENTAL HEALTH IS THE KEY ISSUE. Put your efforts and hard work in the right place and do something that will really work...It is a no-brainer, that is a no-brainer for those of us who actually GET IT...
Posted by: AnonymousIllegal weapons and punishment is the issue
In the recent shooting in Webster of first responders, the Psycho Killer that did the killing was assisted by the purchase of the guns by an ignorant young girl. Lets see how the courts punish her for supplying the guns. If the criminals are not punished then there is no sense in punishing the law abiding citizens. Cuomo is now talking about making assault weapons banned in NY. These are knee jerk reactions based on current events not factual decisions but emotional. Rifle killings are far fewer than hand guns but where is the hand gun ban? These events are just glorified by the media and seized by opportunists. These events are horrific but the actions against the right to bear arms are not warranted. The nut in Colorado had many other items of destruction including bombs and a gasoline boobie trapped apartment. Misplaced anger towards legally owned guns. Punish the criminals, not the innocent.
Posted by: AnonymousMore than one way to skin the cat
People kill people, not guns. Besides, someone does not need a gun to kill people. What about bats, knives, machetes and crowbars? Are they going to ban most everyday objects too? Also, if an evil person is set on killing kids, for example, they could use their hands; It's common sense.
Posted by: AnonymousAssault weapons are already banned.
Assault weapons are fully automatic weapons that only the military uses already. Civilians are allowed to have semi-automatic weapons only. They range from the .22 your grandfather gave you when you were 8 years old up to shotguns used for skeet shooting.
Don't jump on the bandwagon just to make yourself feel better after something bad happens. If you were unaware and uninformed before this became a hot topic you still are. You have not become an expert on this simply because the rest of the country is just as ignorant as you are about firearms.
Read the Constitution and understand it, it's still relevant. It has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with the Founding Fathers wanting to prevent another government from getting too strong. It is a safety measure against a government that is becoming a tyranny. If we are armed or have the ability to be armed then the government might stop and think before they get completely out of control.Posted by: AnonymousIt is about responsible choice
I am a responsible citizen and I choose to shoot and own assault rifles because that is what I choose to own and shoot. I only do because that is where my interests are and I think as an American I have the right to make that choice. I have them for target shooting because that is what I love to do, building and modifying assault weapons is my passion and I think the issue is not should we be able to but who is able to. Make it harder if you wish, improve the checks and balances but don't take that right away all together. That is the wrong choice.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill, people do.
While it may be a given that assault and automatic firearms are a very obvious item that are not required to be possessed by civilians living in a stable and governed territory, removing the right to own these items does impede on basic rights of ownership and property. The arguments that violence, crimes and atrocities occur within the United States, or any other location, because of ownership of assault firearms are (in what I see) a reactionary argument in retaliation of a recent event. What needs to be examined is that these weapons aren't walking the streets on their own and committing crimes; rather it is the people with the will to do these acts that commit them. The proper regulations to impose would be examination of the person purchasing these weapons, inspecting for mental conditions, tendencies or criminal records that would hint towards that they may be used for actions other than sport and recreation, and creating a more extensive and vigilant system to monitor the flow of these weapons. It is not a civilized thing to shoot and murder innocents just because possession of a firearm, and thus it is not civilized persons who would do such a thing.
Posted by: AnonymousAnyone who supports a gun ban is turning a blind eye to the facts.
Murder and violent crime rates are DRASTICALLY higher in countries with excessive gun control laws. Google it. Ever think that the possibility of a homeowner being in possession of an assault rifle gives thugs some reservation about breaking into a home? I can't wait until the day that one of these psychopaths is gunned down by an ordinary armed citizen before police can respond. Then maybe pro gun control people will have to give some merit to the opposing view rather than completely dismissing it for an idealistic world that doesn't exist.
Posted by: AnonymousAmerica is not what it used to be...that is the truth.
I recently graduated with a B.A. in Political Science with an emphasis on Political Theory. Anyone, right or left, who believe that the United States is a republic that will withstand the sands of time is not thinking properly. Also I am a proud owner of an assault style rifle. I am not some backwoods redneck and I have a very good personal life. I have my assault rifle out of want, why is that such a bad thing and why should that be illegal? Yes I believe in more effective comprehensive background checks, yet at the same time if any law abiding citizen wants to own a firearm whether it be assault style or merely hunting they should be allowed. For people who do not know the 2nd amendment, it is in place for free citizens to be able to fight political oppression both from domestic and foreign power. Lastly to all those who do not believe civilians cant fight off an organized military force I instruct you to read a history book. Civilians have long had an impact on defending against military conquest or have rebelled against oppression.
Posted by: AnonymousNo "Definition of Assault Weapon is Useless"
The appearance of an AR 15 type rifle is scary to some people. The lethality is not altered by the elimination of the "extras' that define it as an assault weapon. Take off the pistol grip, it still works. The bayonet lug is useless on most because the lug it too far back to make it useful. Unscrew the flash suppressor and you accomplish nothing. The high capacity magazine is not an issue. I can change my magazines quickly, no matter how limited. You just carry more of them. So after removing all the stuff that scares liberals, we still have the same weapon. A standard shotgun is actually more lethal. Most of the mass murders by the sociopaths would be much messier with a shotgun. A revolver is as lethal because you can use speedloaders. We could go back to cartridge versus muzzle loader, crossbow versus long bow, spear versus sword, slingshot versus rocks and stoning.
The problem is the breakdown of American society with no values, morals and personal responsibility. The mental health system does not keep dangerous people from commiting heinous acts. How about putting people in jail for using a firearms during a crime? How about a database that lists unstable persons who have been judicially committed? Or is that too mean and would hurt their feelings? An assault weapon is not defined by its' appearance, but by its' use. Gun, knife, club, tire tool, vehicles, etc. Remember, it only took less than two dozen terrorists with box cutters to bring this country to its' knees and kill thousands on September 11th. Gun control does not work. Look at Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C., New York City, Newark, etc. They are strict state laws and tougher city controls. I am a retired big city cop with lots of guns in the Great State of Texas where conceal carry and weapons in vehicles and stand your ground laws flourish. God Bless TexasPosted by: AnonymousWhats next, our freedom?
Regardless if its an assault rifle or semi auto pistol or hunting rifle guns in the wrong hands kill. Evil people will find a way to get illegal firearms, the innocent will be left defenseless. Pistols are can be hidden far easier with magazines that carry 15+ rounds, those magazines can be easily carried in much higher numbers.
Posted by: AnonymousNo we the people shouldn't ban assault weapon
No because the second amendent gives us the right to own bare arms but assault weapons is way to hunt or kill your enemy if you are in the military. But with these new assault wepons coming out every few years people are getting greedy and heavy armed just in case if someone wants to rob the or a bank like the qusay and abid al-hamid mahmood, 2003, $1 billion stolen but then you have "case?" That is totally unfair but what if you are in the military what weapon(s) would you use
Posted by: AnonymousFreedom must always come first.
The entire point of owning firearms is not only to defend ourselves from criminals, but also to protect ourselves from the tyranny of our government. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state." We as free people must always question the authority of those with power and control, or else, slower but surly, we too will become slaves of a Totalitarian regime in which people are denied the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. If our 2nd amendment rights are taken from us, their will be nothing else that would prevent our leaders from taken the rest of our rights, our freedom, and our individualism. As free people, we must not accept authority without first questioning it.
Posted by: AnonymousDon't trade your freedom for security.
More people are killed in vehicle accidents each year, than guns. Now, you might own a truck. Let's say that you don't use your bed of your truck very often, and you don't need it for your job. Now, when you get into an accident with that truck, your vehicle virtually becomes a weapon. If the other driver has a smaller vehicle, they are much more likely to be injured or even killed by your larger, heavier truck. So, if you don't use the bed of that truck, and you don't use it for work, why do you need it? Since your truck is a weapon in an accident, and it is in charge of murdering innocent people on the road, it should be banned. That's the only way to keep the roads safe. But no. Even though you don't need a truck, it is your RIGHT to own one. Just like it is my right to own an AR-15, an M-4, or an AK-47. I might not need it, but it is my RIGHT to own one and treat it with responsibility. Why did Rosa Parks need to sit at the front of the bus? The Constitution stands up for my right to own weapons so I can defend my family, my property, and my freedom from the government. Call me a conspiracy freak, call me paranoid, most people tell me I'm afraid of my government. Well, when I'm holding my modified AK-47 and my AR-15, I'm not scared of much.
Posted by: SamPrice23Guns=LIVE
Drugs=Guns? that is the stupidest statement I've ever heard. I'm just as educated as anyone, and you don't need an education to know that if you don't handle the weapon with responsibility its your own fault. That's just common sense. I own an AK and 10,000 rounds. It doesn't make me want to take 20 hits of acid. If someone is lucky enough to break into my house, I have every right in the world to end their life for my family's safety. They had no right to take my things or invade my personal space. I kill when its necessary. When it comes to protection, id rather have my AK at 7.62x39mm rather than a weak 22, pretty much a BB gun in comparison. Its all about stopping power. I want that person dead after one shot rather than waste my ammo. Sure, I could use a 12 Gage, but it only holds a single shot. Who's to say 5 people aren't in your home? I think ill take the 30 clip over the single shot. Once sh*t hits the fan, and the government starts to impose itself on us, Assault rifles will be your key to your freedom. You anti-gun, socialist pigs make me sick. Hopefully the country splits soon and we can separate ourselves from these trash.
Posted by: AnonymousPeople who think guns should be banned live a irrational life of fear
60 years ago a child could take a weapon to school and nothing would come of it. You could buy guns out of magazines and sears would sell them. People got along just fine with no restrictions on weapons.
The actual problem is the poor upbringing that children receive. People who fear guns are mentally ill.Posted by: AnonymousNO
A government which can not trust the average citizen ,with no history of violent behavior, to poses arms is a government witch has lost the consent of the governed and any pretense of legitimacy
Posted by: AnonymousWhen law abiding citizens are no longer slowed to own guns, only criminals will have them.
FBI crime stats prove that the states with the strictest gun laws have the highest rate of guns related crimes. Why do people want to constantly ignore facts because of falsehood portrayed as "truth" by liberal media, rather than just accept the facts. Guns DO NOT kill people! They are merely a tool, people kill people, and will continue to do so no matter what the gun laws end up being.
Posted by: AnonymousI can give you several good reasons
1. This is supposed to be a free country and the first thing that totalitarian countries take away is the right to own weapons. 2. As to collecting. That guy on the yes side sites cars as a safe machine because they are not designed to kill. Despite the fact that cars kill more people than guns. Collecting guns is no different than collecting knives, swords, or wooden clubs. Who cares it is a free country and we are free to collect what we want as long as we don't hurt people with it. 3. Protection and "civilized societ?" Be sure to remind the burlger that invades your house with murderous intent that he should be civilized. In the 30 minutes ormore it takes the cops to get there he will likely have already killed you. 4. Guns are simple machines and easy for a skilled person to make. Criminals do in fact manufacture their own guns sometimes. Just like prohibition criminals made booze. Criminals also make guns 5. Wackos that want to kill will find a way to do it with or with out guns. The man that killed frank loyd wright's wife used a gas can and an axe. He killed 7 people and maimed two others. He didn't have a gun. 6. At sc0tjung: you are right that assault weapons are made for killing humans. That is why we should have the right to own them. If our government turns against us and we need to boot them out a 22 rifle will not be enough. Plus there is nothing wrong with having fun shooting targets with a machine gun. Target shooting is fun and hurts no one. tell you what. You prove that criminals won't have guns. Prove that governments don't sometimes go bad. Prove that if my home was invaded by armed bad guys that the police could teleport instantly into my home and take the bad guys out. Prove that honest law abiding people that own assault rifles secretly want to kill people. Prove that target shooting with a machine gun is not fun. Then I will maybe agree that the right to have them should be taken.
Posted by: AnonymousIt is my right
In the event that the government is not able to protect my person, land and/or family, it my right to do so any way I wish. It is my right to own any self defence weapon I feel a neccesary. In my opinion, it is treason to write law against this.
Posted by: AnonymousAn "assault" rifle is determined by cosmetics...
There is nothing in the assault weapons ban that makes them functionally different than any other semi automatic rifle. They are not automatic weapons capable of firing 11 rounds a second as the uneducated suggest. This is a ban of cosmetics. To make the uneducated and the scared feel safe and allow politicians to garner media recognition, distracting people from the real problems our country faces. Additionally the law was proven to have no affect on public safety.
Posted by: AwThe Math and Stats do not add up
Assault Weapons are only used in 0.6% of all gun crimes. Why would you ban a weapon that is NOT responsible for the problem? The math and statistics do not support the ban justification. Even if it wasn't a second amendment argument you still have to prove that the weapon banned is the weapon that is going to statistically lower gun crimes. And it does not. Just doesn't make sense.
Posted by: AnonymousStop the loopholes not the law abiding citizens.
Take the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable, not out of the hands of responsible adults that want to protect their family.
The information below is from the web site dedicated to the memory of Daniel Mauser a 15 year old boy killed in the tragic massacre at Columbine High School on April 20th, 1999. http://www.danielmauser.com/close.html
"Licensed dealers are those who sell guns for a living and work out of some type of shop. Licensed dealers are required to conduct criminal background checks of all their customers. Everyone else who sells a gun is considered an unlicensed seller. Unlicensed sellers don't operate out of shops, and they are NOT required to conduct background checks or keep any records. Therefore it's easy for a criminal to buy a gun by buying from a private seller, particularly at a gun show, where there are so many guns being sold under one roof. That's the gun show loophole.
According top law enforcement, it's not uncommon for 25% to 50% of the gun sellers at a gun show to be unlicensed sellers.
Please be aware that most background checks are completed in less than two hours-in fact, many states have an "insta-check system" that completes most checks in less than 15 minutes.
There is no longer a 3-day waiting period-once you pass the background check, you can purchase a gun. The Federal (and some state) laws give law enforcement up to three days to complete the background check. Even though 90% are completed quickly, law enforcement sometimes needs more time-especially in cases in which the gun buyer has an arrest record but court records are not complete enough to show whether the buyer was convicted.
Closing this loophole is an important public safety issue. It's a common sense way to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and kids. According to the FBI, the Brady Law has already been successful in preventing the sale of 200,000 guns to prohibited buyers.
Closing the gun show loophole ensures that all sellers and buyers at gun shows play by the same set of rules: if you buy a gun, you'll undergo a background check, regardless of who you buy from!"Posted by: AnonymousGun bans are unconstitutional.
I'm sure it has been said many times, however, the second amendment clearly protects our rights to own and bear guns. I do not believe the government should, nor has the right to, infringe on these rights. We are a free country, and we have the right to own these weapons.
Posted by: AnonymousOVER MY DEAD BODY
When one item has similar features of another item, does it make it the same item? Of course it doesn't! An Assault Rifle is a semi-automatic rifle with the ability to switch to 3 round burst or even fully-automatic that are utilized my a military force. The so called Assault Rifles that are sold at Walmart or Bass Pro have been altered from their original state, by tweaks of the internal parts. The bolt carrier assemblies have been shortened to throw off the timing if one was to attempt to convert it to full-auto. There is no auto-sear, plus the canal where the sear sits has been narrowed to prevent one from fitting. The whole trigger assembly as been changed. These so called Assault Rifles are no different than a semi-auto pistol, other than the size of the firearm and the max rage capabilities. Plus think of it like this...If they're outlawed and deemed illegal, then who do you think will buy and sell them illegally? CRIMINALS!!! The same people the government are trying to prevent from buying them! We are constantly under supervision by our government, we gave them the right to invade our privacy, detain us unlawfully, accuse anyone of being a terrorist, in the next 10 years we will be under 24hr. surveillance by armed unmanned drones, and the U.S. military was given the right to enter and detain anyone from their homes if they are suspected of terrorist activities! Now you want to allow them to take our weapons away?
Posted by: AnonymousRights
It is not a question of what we need, it is a question of why we should not be allowed to have what we want. Why does one need $5 cups of coffee or Cadillacs or any number of other decadent american possessions? It is simply our right and you liberals are being lied to. During the assault weapons ban we had Columbine. During the assault weapons ban we had the north Hollywood shootout and many other incidents that proved the ban did not work. The gun show loophole was made possible by the Brady Bill. Then in Australia they banned and seized all semi auto, full auto, and pump action guns. The result was an increase in all crimes including gun crimes. Armed robberies went up 69%. The fact is that criminals prefer unarmed victims. There is no reason to take the rights of citizens because of a few criminals. It would make no difference in preventing mass murder. Remember Timothy McVeigh? They didn't ban diesel or fertilizer. Also, no law would ever make it possible to seize the assault weapons or high capacity magazines already manufactured. All this ban would do is increase their value. Something that might work is putting off duty police at school or police sub stations near schools. How about a 911 type number where a mentally disturbed person can call if they are planning such a event? Who knows, maybe they have a few seconds of clarity, maybe enough to reach out.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are Guns.
A rifle has the same capacity to kill as any other weapon. In close quarters, a shotgun can put a football-sized hole in someone with little effort. Pistols are the MOST commonly used firearm in armed crimes. A Crossbow with standard Razor-Tipped arrows causes more damage than the standard 7.62x51mm AK designed bullet. Banning "assault" weapons will change nothing, and trying to use the recent Sandy Hook shooting is a facade. There were NO assault weapons used on the scene of the shooting. The Bushmaster platform is a semi-automatic weapon, which means only a trigger pull is required for each shot; making it identical to any pistol and half of the shotguns on the market. IT IS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON! The fear of guns is an invalid argument. Taking away weapons from all of the law-abiding citizens because a few (scarcely .3%) of the gun owners using their guns for crime is wrong. Child abuse occurs in 10% of all homes, so should we be required to turn our children in to the state as well? Car accidents happen every 3 seconds, so should we all hand over the keys to the state?
Posted by: AnonymousEvery American has a right to bear arms.
I have been reading both sides of the argument, And I have realized a few things, for one, most everyone for a ban on assault rifles don't seem to have a clue the AR-15, and the AK-47 automatic only one bullet expelled for each pull of the trigger, None of these guns used in any of the killing were full automatic weapons. Second you absolutely can hunt with them and people do. Oh and by the way a designated traditional hunting rifle calibered in say a 30-06 or a 7mm magnum is much more devastating than a .223 or 5.56 of the AR-15 there has been many tests done. I know its been said but no gun in the history of this Earth has ever killed anybody it takes a person with intent to kill. I agree we need better back ground checks, and a persons mental capacity should be accounted for meaning if a person has a history of mental problems don't allow that person to have a gun, period. Ano was saying that if we got rid of all guns they would feel safe because nobody would be pointing a gun at them, You forget if you get rid of guns criminals will still find a way to get them, we just won't have any way to protect ourselves. Look people think back in our history would we of survived without guns actually we have thrived as a country largely because of guns.
Posted by: AnonymousFor what reasons?
When it comes to gun violence in America assault rifles account for the smallest percentage. With this knowledge why ban assault rifles? If the point of laws are to protect us, and this law clearly won't, what is the point of this law? To disarm law abiding citizens, of course... STOP THIS.
Posted by: SaveLiberty90The second amendment isnt about hunting.
The purpose of the second amendment is to give the citizens a means to defend their lives and rights from any person or government who wishes to threaten them. As governments have more powerful weaponry, and so do criminals, us ordinary citizens should too. The first thing Hitler did before persecuting the Jews was to disarm all the citizens, and they were helpless when the Nazis came for them. If we don't have guns, the government can do what it wants, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Its just the way it is.
Posted by: theninjakid308Criminals will still have guns
One word. Black Market. There is a black market here in America. If you know the right people they can pull strings and get you guns, for a price. Even if law abiding citizens are not allowed to have guns, criminals will still have guns. We have this thing called the bill of rights. One of these rights is to bear arms. If we give up these rights, who knows which rights will be withdrawn next? If we give up our rights, our homes will be searched without our consent, religions will be forced upon us by our leaders, and who knows what else. If you don't want a gun, fine, don't have one. But those of us that do, should have the right to bear arms legally. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. You wanna put a ban on kitchen knives? Cause you know, someone can go on a mudering rampage with one of those too.
Posted by: AnonymousI have read many statements for both sides of the argument.
Most people I read of stating that yes, "assault weapons" should be banned. They also tend to be irrational, and uneducated when it comes to guns. In my opinion, all states should be NFA compliant, and the 1986 ban should be lifted. We could, with some effort, become a country like Switzerland, have a well educated and armed populace. I was thinking that would be a major help to our law enforcement, as well as any other, natural disasters.
For those out there that still don't accept the true nature of the 2nd Ammendment, I pity you for your narrow minds, the founding fathers would be very sad indeed.Posted by: Anonymous"No Reason to Have Them"?
That is the most idiotic thing I have heard. Some guns aren't used for home defense or hunting. They are just owned because people like collecting guns. People don't question Jay Leno for having hundreds of cars and say, "You don't need that many cars." It's what he likes to do, and some people like to collect guns. With a limited supply of assault rifles and machine guns on the market, it only makes it harder to collect them.
For arguments about things such as safety, read every other response.Posted by: AnonymousThe word "Need"
The word "need" is tossed around a lot Americans enjoy there freedom by owning big TVs, cool cars, etc.. I own my 223. and my 22.lr "assault" rifles because i want to and i have the freedom to do so free will comes with responsibility. As far as protecting my family home i have a pistol which holds less than 10 rounds. We as parents failed our children when we don't teach them the value of life and to respect other people. Teach them that life is not Call of Duty, or any other video game its about living.
Posted by: AnonymousA big hell no
Most of the anti-gun crowd have no clue what an assault rifle is. It's a full auto military weapon not a semi-auto that just looks like one. Most people don't own full auto weapons because it's a hassle and extra cost with the feds but we should be able to own what we want. Why should government have better and more guns than the people it is trying to control. I call that a road to tyranny. The gun problem in this country is not with law abiding citizens but with drug related gangs and criminals from south of the border. Get rid of those problems and gun related violence drops. It's also been proven time and again that citizens with guns deter crime. It really pisses me off too that these anti-gun clowns pretend to know about AR and AK rifles. Thinking they are some kind of anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns. They are actually less powerful than your common 270, 7mm, 30-30 or 30.06 deer rifles. I bet they don't even know that the AR-15 (civilian) and M16 (miltary) are .22 caliber. I shot my AK at a watermelon and it put a hole in the front and a slightly bigger one in the back but my 270 Winchester obliterated and scattered the melon. I do wish these anti-gunners would quit paying attention to media and learn to do research before opening their yaps.
Posted by: Chained20+ years of military service.
The weapons that I own represent a time honored service and respect for a well designed tool. I was disturbed recently at some ranting that people who care about Benghazi don't care about deaths in other administrations. That is pathetic. I care about all of them. I care about children you wretched bureaucrats and I caution you before you compare me to the filth of the earth as an extremist. I have the means to secure freedom and those means are not up for the barter of cowards and hypocrites in the name of safety and security. I care more than a lot of those who will push their views while trampling on the sacrifice and honor of veterans. I care about every single lost soul to the cause of freedom. All of this to then watch as people tear at each other and solve nothing. I am not the left and I am not the right. I am of God and Country and it makes a difference every day of my life and under whatever banner is in power at the capitol. There is a lot of hype about supporting the troops. Who do you think represent the majority of tactical firearms owners?
Posted by: JonnyMcSizzleI need a gun because the government might become tyrannical.
The idea of government corruption is nothing new. The Founders understood that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They designed the system with checks and balances in order to combat this problem. Constant competition within the bureaucracy and between the three branches would assure no one person or group became too powerful. A testament to the success of this system is the fact that we have seen people like Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby, and Jack Abramoff come and go, and the machinery has kept turning.
There are 456 reported federal agencies in our government. Within each of these there are bureaucracies. What most people do not realize is that the size of government is actually a check on its power rather than a sign of it. It is true that as government grows, so too does the number of regulations, but the more people means more competition, and competition means security.
Still, safeguards against tyranny are not only systemic. America's political culture is one with a deep-rooted, 200 year tradition of democracy. The American people are extremely wary of government infringing on individual liberty which can be traced back to our revolutionary experience. There is no way in our system for one person or party to consolidate power.
This paranoia has increased greatly among right wing groups since the election of President Obama even though he is by no means the first president to support gun control measures. He is different from previous president's in one very superficial way. Given the history of the America's right, promotion for political purposes of fears that Obama is going to take away the guns and become a tyrant is reminiscent of the Southern Strategy.Posted by: AnonymousThe 2nd Amendment is non negotiable.
The founding fathers created the second amendment as a deterrent to a tyrannical government. That's it. Not for hunting, not for sport. But as a means to keep the government from crossing the line. The bill of rights is non negotiable, and I do not care if my guns scare you. You have a right to not want them, you do not have a right to tell me I cannot. The second amendment is also the only amendment that guarantees all the others. Why don't you anti gunners give up your first amendment?
Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely not
I would like to quote from cradlefan: "I know how powerful these weapons are..". Obviously you don't, because you said grab a 30-30. An AK-47 is chambered for 7.62x39, a round that is 200 fps slower than a 30-30 and delivers about 100 ft-lbs less energy. An AR-15 is chambered for 5.56 x 45. This cartridge is less powerful than a 273, which was your suggested alternative. Assault weapons were banned in 1934, as the main defining characteristic of an assault weapon is the ability to select between semi automatic and fully automatic fire. (In some cases 3-round burst) ONLY semi-automatic weapons are available to civilians, so why are we still arguing this? Truth be told, my AR is less dangerous because were I to run out of ammo or have a malfunction, it's not nearly as sturdy as my bolt action for bashing out a targets brains. The second amendment really gives us the right to own whatever the military owns, so that we can protect ourselves from domestic tyranny. So in closing, as long as politicians are legal, we must have weapons that are capable of dispatching them with speed and convenience.
Posted by: jmiller84So, you wanted "CHANGE"? : Look in your damn pockets AMERICA! THERE'S YOUR CHANGE!!!
The 'lawmakers' (for now) are making rules about subjects they know nothing about.. Can you see Dianne behind a M-4 and holding a froup @ 100 yards without shooting herself or someone else? Can you see Barry explaining the difference between a 'round' and a 'bullet'? Or maybe Uncle Joe coming to your aid with his trusty double barreled shotgun when you're being accosted outside a liquor store...
STOP while we have a America we can be proud of.... CHANGE...Lol YEAH! Look in your damn pockets!!! There's your 'change'! Fools... WAKE UP AMERICA; WAKE UP PLEASE...Posted by: AnonymousGroup punishment is for children
I have a clean record, with no felony convictions, therefore I should not be prohibited from owning a semi-automatic rifle. The Supreme Court has ruled that we can have weapons that are in common use, appropriate for a militia. The semi-automatic rifles that are under discussion are both common, and appropriate for use in a militia. Therefore I should be able to own one if I so choose.
Posted by: AnonymousNo
I am an ordinary citizen, own weapons for self defense first and entertainment second. I take training classes which I believe everyone should. My personal opinion is that everyone should be able to own one if they wanted to. The Anti crowds' logic just doesn't make sense to me because it is the person and not the weapon causing harm. IT IS A TOOL, and don't tell me there is a difference because as soon as the PERSON picks up anything to cause harm, they are going to cause harm.
Posted by: AnonymousDon't disarm the innocent.
Think about this for a second, if we make a law that bans weapons from law-abiding citizens, can you honestly say that you believe people who plan to commit crimes with these guns are really going to turn them in? We will be left with criminals with these weapons and we law-abiding citizens unarmed. To ban assault rifles will be the biggest step to socialism this county has seen in a while. It is not about hunting, it's about being able to protect our constitution from tyranny such as this gun ban.
Posted by: AnonymousAR-15s are NOT assault rifles. Stop putting them together.
If you're going to try to determine which guns should be legal and shouldn't be legal, I would suggest you actually try to learn a thing or two about guns.
The AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle. How so do you ask? Well there are 3 characteristics that a rifle must have in order to meet the qualifications to be an Assault Rifle.
1. Detachable magazine. That banana clip or box you see on guns that holds the ammo in case if you were wondering. Yes, the AR-15 does have that...but wait, let me continue.
2. It must fire rifle caliber rounds as opposed to pistol rounds which are shorter. Yes, the AR-15 does fire rifle caliber rounds (though it should be noted that they fire a .223 caliber round which is only slightly larger than that of a .22 caliber). Now, the final qualification.
3. Selective fire modes. Meaning you can switch the gun between Semi-Auto (1 bullet per trigger squeeze) to either 3-round burst (3 bullets er trigger squeeze) or Full-Auto (continuous fire as long as you hold the trigger) at the flip a small lever above the trigger. The AR-15...does NOT have this feature as it can only fire in Semi-Auto (meaning you can only put off one round per trigger squeeze).
Also to note, violent crime rates in the US have dropped by over 50% in the past 20 years. Note that I said "Violent" crimes...not just gun related crimes. Now look at Great Britain and Australia. They also have banned guns and their crime rates (particularly violent crimes, robbery, and home invasion) skyrocketed after gun bans. Guns aren't the problem, the people are. You want to ban guns to prevent violent crimes? With you kind of logic, I'm surprised you haven't tried to put a ban on things like "Murder". Let's put a ban against murder and establish those "Murder-free zones" much like those "Gun-Free zones" were to prevent shootings and see how that goes.Posted by: Newg87People will always find a way assault rifles or not
Guns don't kill people. Stupid/crazy people with guns kill people. And those stupid people half the time aren't even the actual owners of the guns in the first place. Also as we all know if people want to do soemtimes stupid they will find a way. Not matter what they have to do.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, because criminals by definition don't follow the law.
What exactly would such a ban accomplish?
Killing people is already a crime is it not? Yet the law against murder doesn't seem to be particularly effective.
I submit that if someone is deranged enough to have the desire to kill someone, they will find a way to do it. Whether that be an assault rifle, a chainsaw, a machete, a bomb or bare hands.Posted by: Anonymous"Assault Weapons" have been banned since 1936! Modern sporting rifles are not assault weapons
I was as much right to protect myself as the president does with his entourage of FULL AUTO ASSAULT WEAPONS. I am not putting my life in the hands of police that I know for a fact think everyone is beneath them. I only count on them to write a report after I was raped tortured and shot in the head!
Posted by: AnonymousThe second amendment shall not be infringed.
Give in in one area, and you've forfeited the battle. Next thing you know we're all gonna be as strictly ruled as Chicago. Besides, if you make them illegal, only the bad guys and officials are going to have them. Normal people would never have a chance, and WE are the first responders! The police aren't everywhere. And even if you only had to worry about the officials, they haven't always been on the people's side.
Posted by: AnonymousPlease first define "Assault Weapon" by functionality
Before America can have an intelligent dialog on banning types of firearms we first must define what an "Assault Weapon" is by functionality, not by cosmetic features. Take my NO vote as a middle of the road vote since the question is vague.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat would a ban really achieve
Everybody here keeps bringing up platitudes supporting their opinions and emotions here. I'll be honest with you, I am a gun owner ( I have way more guns than most gun owners even think is rational), to include 16 different "assault rifles". I am a collector, I do not hunt, might try it one day but not the reason for the guns. I could try to go into a semantics debate with you about types of guns, definitions and all other sorts of minutia but it really does not matter.
Those of you against assault rifles but agree with hunting, "sporting" guns and the such and feel that is all the average civilian needs do not really understand the second amendment. It has nothing to do with hunting, Honestly you could pass a law banning hunting with firearms and it would most likely pass the constitutional sniff test! The second amendment has every thing to do with enabling the citizens of this nation to be able to resist tyranny if it ever came from our own government. In order to do this the citizens have a natural right to the exact same types of weaponry that the military has.(before anyone brings it up "arms" historically refers to anything portable by one man, No no ICBM crap please) The constitution does not give you rights, It tells the government what it may NOT do, Without a constitutional amendment they cannot legally disarm the citizenry. Current supreme court decisions have affirmed this.
Now I have no delusions whatsoever of fighting off government troops with my Glock and AR-15. In fact, I am one of those government troops and I know from where I am sitting right now that you would not stand a chance if the government decides to take you down hard. I see all the targeting packages. The intelligence and target acquisition process that we have perfected in the last decade is scary. We can go from found to dead in minutes! All the small arms in the world won't do you any good in that regard, The caveat to that is to look at what a insurgency can achieve.That is how our country started and that is how our founding fathers would be remembered to this day if the British empire had won, As terrorists or insurgents!
There are in excess of 25,000 local, state and federal gun laws, statues and regulations already in existence.
None of them prevented this tragedy from occurring, Because those who would commit evil acts will not be restrained by a rule or law!
Say we pass a law, Suppose it is Draconian and calls for all assault weapons to be turned in, how will it be enforced, Are the police going to spend the next decade searching every pace in America where a gun could be hidden. I've got some experience with Cache sites from Iraq and Afghanistan and lets we just say that there still is not a real shortage of weapons being recovered over here from hide sites yet and we have been doing this for 10 years!
There were 300,000 AR-15's sold last year alone in the US, That does not count all the other types and styles. A ban at this point is useless. During the last ban, Stores specializing in "high" cap mags never ran out, They just cost a lot more, All that happened was the desire for this style of weapons was driven higher than ever before.
The same thing is happening now, More people (who would have never bought one of these style guns before) have bought one or more in the last week because of the thought of a ban. Americans do not like to be told that they can't do or have something. It tends to make us want it even more!
If every gun in the world could be confiscated and destroyed then perhaps I would be willing to turn mine in too, But we all know rationally that at will not happen, The police need guns, the military has them, and as long as one still exists then the person who has possession of it could use that tool to commit a heinous act, It's not the tools fault the act was committed,it is the persons who commits it.
In the end, we need not a feel good blanket law to throw over this to pretend that it will solve the problem but father to have a frank national conversation about how and why some of out citizens feel driven to commit these acts and for rational plans to be put forth to protect our kids. This time it was a rifle, Next time (it will happen again unfortunately) it maybe Molotov's thrown through classroom windows, improvised explosives, poison in the school lunches (actually something that the Taliban has been doing to schools here in Afghanistan), Psycho driving a truck through the kids lined up to get onto buses???
One last thing before I get off my soapbox, I truly appreciate all of the comments from those from Europe and Australia, but our whole system of government is different from yours and generally what works for you will not work for us. Remember we broke away from the Commonwealth for a reason, and set our Constitution up as we did for that very reason.Posted by: rcusmcEveryone has the right to bear arms in order to protect themselves, their family, and the people around them (if you are a licensed carry permit holder).
First off, it needs to be understood that guns don't kill people, stupid people do. That's like blaming a spoon for making people obese. The person pulling the trigger is to blame, not the gun. Whoever compared having a lion in your apartment is an idiot. Lions are uncontrollable animals that cannot be fully tamed. A firearm cannot and will not go off unless the trigger is pulled. Second, there is a trend to all of these mass shootings. Everyone of the left field liberal idiots keeps saying, 'where are all of these well armed citizens when the mass shooting occur?'. This is the reason: the biggest mass shootings have occurred in places where there is a NO FIREARMS ALLOWED posting (schools, movie theaters, etc.). There is no one there to stop them unless someone carrying their firearm illegally is present. Bad people are going to carry guns, find guns, shoot guns, and kill people whether assault weapons are banned, get stricter background checks, or stop the manufacturing of high capacity magazines for assault weapons. Drunk drivers, drugs, and cigarettes kill people every day. And you can find those three just about anywhere.
Posted by: AnonymousBanning "Some" guns is exactly the same as banning "some" religions
Whether you think assault gun bans would make any difference or not doesn't matter. The Second Amendment was argued by the founding father NOT for self defense and NOT for hunting, it was to insure the PEOPLE (not even the states) would always be a fighting force on par with the military to insure their liberty.
To say that assault guns need to be banned because they are dangerous is as ridiculous as saying Islam should be banned because its dangerous.
If you're going to rewrite the constitution, push for an amendment.Posted by: Anonymousgood people vs. bad
I seen a post from the pro ban side saying if people were allowed to own assault weapons then more insidences like the Colorado theater shooting would happen. I want to point out that they are already legal and it doesn't increase. Many people involved with murder and robberies and gangs are convicted felons who by law cant poses any firearm or knives on person for that matter. Yet they still use guns. WHY? Because they are Bad GUYS!! THey don't care.
Imagine being a greedy Bad Guy. you know that every peron in the U.S. except law enforcment has no means to protect themselfs. No longer will you (Bad) have to worry about being hurt breaking in to a familys home. I know that this is about assalut weapons only but a Gun is a gun. No Gang in the Worl is going to not have a gun or assalault riffle just because they are banned. They are already banned idiots from them! Lets get rid of matches and open flame too. other wise waco will happen all over. Stupid!!!!
On a side point. If the majority of law biding citizens carried a concealed weapon All those crazy 1 man ! gun shoot outs that kill dozens would have ended a lot different. 1 BAD man with 1 gun vs. 12 GOOD men with 12 guns = less dead.
Also ASSAULT WEAPON does not mean automatic! You already need a special permit for those.
So everyone on the YES or pro ban should stop with the feel good unrealistic make believe thinking where in your world weapon ban = peace and that means gangs, dealers, etc gets rid of there weapons. It is not reality. The reality NO LAW that exist has stopped anything. Drugs are illegal and yet here they are. Murder is illegal and it happens. The last 6 years violent crime in the U.s. Has dropped more than 6%. Also during the last 4 the drops were much more significant. In The pro ban side your probably thinking "thanks to Obama!" Well in a way you would be right. When Obam took office Gun sales soared! They have been increasing since. Many people thought he would attept to Ban them so they baught them while they could.Posted by: AnonymousHow are your rights being violated?
Free people don't need a reason for owning and using an object. Unlike nuclear weapons, its use doesn't necessarily violate another's rights. Finally, what gives any one of you the moral authority to tell another that they cannot own such a thing?
Posted by: AnonymousI have had guns for years and never hurt anyone.
I am so sick of some crazy hurting someone and the government using this to limit my freedom. I have owned guns for over 20 years, and have used them as kid hinting and such. It is so amazing that I have never wanted to kill someone, and have never tried to. I am a veteran that is four years from retirement (Army) but I also did not grow up killing people on video games. Start teaching kids respect and responsibility instead of telling them they are never at fault. Look at the real problems that are out there instead of "take away the guns and we will all be safe". Take away the guns and we are one step closer to losing what little freedoms we have and that those before faught and died for.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill, people do.
It is crazy to think we will save lives by banning guns. Cars DRIVEN by idiots kill more people every year, but we would never ban cars would we? If people are crazy, they will find a way to be crazy. Japan had someone come in a classroom and stab several students to death. If it wasn't guns it would be knives, bombs, fire, etc. Are we going to ban all those things? Let's get to the heart of the matter, the emotional turmoil that propels these people to kill, that is where your answer lies.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are not evil. Only people are evil.
Read the title- Guns are not evil. Only people are evil. I have owned a number of weapons including the so called assault weapons. I have also known a number of people that were evil. Guns only shoot what the shooter wants to shoot. On the other hand, I know a very large number of people who love to jump on the simplistic popular view of the day to solve the most complex problems. Putting Feinstein's ban in place would only punish the honest among us, not the truly evil beings.
Posted by: AnonymousMore excuses for the antigun crowd to control us!
The recent tragedy involving the senseless murder of innocent school children is horrific. And the answer is to ban semi auto weapons? This unfortunate incident has become nothing more than an excuse for the gun control crowd to muscle their will on legal gun owners. Where is the outrage at a parent who failed to get proper treatment for a sibling with apparent serious mental problems? Where is the outrage that she took this sibling to the gun range but did NOT secure her weapons in a safe and responsible manner? Where is the outrage at the proliferation of violent video games this kid was consumed with? And how about the car he used to get to the scene of the crime? Lets ban that type of car!!?? FOR EVERY HORRIFIC SENSELESS KILLING LIKE THIS THERE ARE MILLIONS OF DECENT FOLKS USING FIREARMS WITH COMMON SENSE AND RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR SAVING COUNTLESS LIVES AND PREVENTING THOUSANDS OF VIOLENT ACTS. The simple fact is you have a better chance of getting killed by lighting than by a semi-auto weapon used in a crime. If it had not been with a gun, this wacko would have done something else. But common sense solutions are NOT what the anti gun crowd are after here. They don't like guns and simply want to stop gun owners from keeping their rights. More Democrats more Obama, more government control. Absolutely no solutions. Think gun control works? Look at the statistic for Chicago and Washington DC. We have become a nation of sheeple...absolute fools.
Posted by: sailmanOpen your eyes!
Any weapon put in the wrong hands is a danger. Dangerous criminals in prison don't have guns. They will go to any extent to get "the job" done. Sharpen a toothbrush, use a shoestring, or just use their fists. To take away anything from a law abiding citizen because a sick person did something outrageous....is outrageous!
Posted by: AnonymousViolent Crimes Won't Decrease
Banning assault rifles, hunting rifles, shot guns, and/or handguns will not stop senseless acts of violence. If someone is dead set on committing tragic crimes like the Connecticut Elementary School shooting or the Aurora Colorado movie theater shooting, they will find a way to carry out that idea. The FBI did a study regarding fiream sources and their report was
in 2004 where they Surveyed State Prison Inmates across the nation, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from – family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source which constituted 80% of the current gun population used in crimes. These are all premeditated acts of violence, not some random event. Its just as easy to buy a gun off the street as it is to buy controlled substances off the street. I agree that something must be done to prevent or minimize the damage of these senseless acts of violence, but taking away the tool used to both protect and destroy will leave those that are good law biding citizens without a way to defend them selves in the event of an emergency requiring the use of deadly force. Citizens who meet good standing requirements and pass certain gun safety courses should be allowed to own such type weapons, but would need to renew such certifications annually or biannually. I currently have a CCW permit as well as a class 3 weapons license which required me to go through several training courses. I have also served in the military and went to Iraq 2 times. I've seen the destructive power of the assault rifle, but I have also seen it save many lives. The assault rife is a tool like any other firearm out there designed to protect and destroy. Its the individual carrying that tool that determines its use. Another proof of point one can reference is the knife attack that took place on 14 Dec. 2012 in Chenpeng village in the southern province of Guangxi, China. If its not a firearm then its a knife or some other tool and as I said before these are all premeditated acts of violence and when someone is dead set on committing a tragic crime they will find a way.Posted by: AnonymousBalance the budget and leave guns alone
Banning guns doesn't ban crazy. We have well over 200 million guns in the United States AND a long, proud tradition of gun ownership. It's not the Government's right to take that away. It's not anyone's right. I am fine with taking a test before owning a gun. A psych test. That's about all the further I think it should go.
Posted by: AnonymousNO they should not be outlawed
I think banning assault only gives the government and the police who I feel are corrupt the only firepower. We as free people should have the right to own such firearms. Stopping people like Adam Lanza could have been at least made more difficult given the fact that he was mentally ill and no one did anything about it. All these people were mentally ill and no one saw it, right!!! What we need to do is stop blaming the instrument and start making the person accountable for the atrocities. I am so saddened by the loss of those kids, may their souls rest with god in heaven. How come there are more deaths with peoples hands and feet than assault rifle kills? Are we that dumb of a society. We need god back in our country, more prayer than ever to win back our country.
Posted by: AnonymousARs will never desapear from the U.S
If ARs are banned they will be imported from other countries and most likely be automatic instead of semi-auto so that is worst and once they are banned crazy people will start using shotguns wich are more dangerous than ARs in crowded places, bombs have made there way into the U.S with no problem and they arent legal, you gun control poeople are just going to get good gun owner citizens powerless against bad people that get guns out of the system
Posted by: romeo.coronadoAssault weapons are not assault rifles
Assault weapons are a legal made up term to ban an entire class of semiautomatic firearms with evil looking cosmetic features. All handguns today are semiautomatic, and the majority of hunting rifles are as well. They are one shot, one trigger pull. They cannot go on full auto nor can they go on burst mode.
Posted by: AnonymousWe were not given the right to bear swords.
The right to bear arms is designed to protect the people from the government. That is why our founding fathers did not say "right to bear swords." This right is to protect us from the government itself and yet, day by day the government successfully removes our chance to defend ourselves. Besides this obvious breach to our freedom is the good ole common sense argument that with a coffee can of nails and firecrackers I could have caused more loss of human life than the horrible tragedies in CT and in Colorado combined. Another sickening aspect to this whole situation is that these asshole polititians go on the air screaming gun control and sling as much shit as possible... and yet i seriously doubt that any of them actually called the victims families.
Posted by: AnonymousThis is, without a doubt,
The most irrational idea I've heard in quite some time. Since when do gangs and drug cartels follow the law? Why take away our assault rifles that would give abiding citizens a fighting chance? Besides, spree shootings are typically done in close quarters where a gunman could use a pistol and several clips or a shotgun to do the same thing and have a similar numbers of casualties/deaths. At what point do we draw the line?
Posted by: AnonymousEducation.
Sociopaths will always loom. This is different than those actually labeled as mentally ill. People with personality disorders are most dangerous. They blend in well and are often charismatic. When people with such anger and internal discord as well as lack of empathy are set on distruction and causing harm, they will set to accomplish it by any means. They don't feel success unless in their own way prove their point. These people unfortunately are a reality and balanced law abiding citizens should never be stripped of rights to defend themselves. One of the topics people argue is possession of 'assault weapons' and should they be available to civilians or not. Absolutely they should. Why not? I go shooting on weekends and have never ever thought of harming another. I use this as time with my father. I keep record of accuracy, etc. Could I do this with a stardard rifle as opposed to an AR or AK? Sure, however I WANT to have accuracy with any! Just for the sport and challenge. And because I'm responsible with it. The government should not dictate what hobbies and sports are allowed. People ask, are these truly necessary? Well that is absurd. Lamborghinis are designed with V12 engines. Yet if one can afford them, one can buy them. I hear no argument on how they belong on race tracks and not on city streets, or that they increase potential for speeding and reckless driving and therefore increase the chance of causing harm. People should focus on being responsible. I do not agree with being dictated what a supposed free person can and can't do. This country is and continues to be great because of our freedoms. Education is key. Higher morals, removal of stigma, better coping skills are a must.
Posted by: AnonymousSecond amendment, nothing to do with hunting
When the second amendment was written hunting never crossed their mind. Hunting was not a sport then. It was a requirement to live. They harvested wild animals like we go to the supermarket. So the concern of protecting their right to eat was not up for debate. This was strictly about protecting themselves from another tyrannical government. Like the one they had just removed themselves from. With force. With guns. The second amendment is not a privilege. It is a human right.
Posted by: AnonymousBanning them accomplishes nothing.
1) Decide to kill people.
2) Find a weed dealer.
3) Ask weed dealer for coke dealer.
4) Ask coke dealer for gun dealer.
5) Buy weapon and ammo.
6) Go to town.
In most cases, the number of people killed in the time there attacker had to do it did not require an "assault weapon". Assault weapons don't fire bullets at a faster rate than 90% of other the guns owned by civilians. The Sandy Hook attacker had 20 minutes. He could have done the same thing with a bolt action rifle.Posted by: Anonymous"Assault" Weapon?
Look at the definition of assault weapons. It is all cosmetics. There is no reason to ban a specific kind of gun anyways. Guess what. There are tons of guns out there rigt now. You can't retroactively ban something. Nobody is going to turn in an expensive firearm voluntarily and we do not hve the resources to confiscate them. Too little, too late, too impractical, too anti constitutional. The better idea is training and allowing the good guys to defend themselves. Gun bans don't work. I live in Chicago, one of the most restrictive places on gun ownership. We are at the top of the list for gun violence. The majority of the guns used in crimes are NOT legally possessed.
Posted by: AnonymousA gun is just a tool
People kill people, not guns. Taking guns will not solve anything. But make things worse. Look at drugs. There banned and illegal, but that does not stop the fact that criminals still get them. Criminals are going to get weapons no matter what. If I wanted to kill a bunch of people at one time and did not have a gun other means could be used just as effectively. TNT, Poison, Fire, just to name a few. And to Flan59 you like man are talking out of ignorance like most people. Her gun could not shoot 6 bullets a second. It's a semi-automatic not a fully automatic. And BTW, case in point. Several years ago in LA there was a shoot out and guess what the crooks had. Fully automatic ak-47's. Those are illegal to own, posses etc. unless you have the correct license to do so. so there you go. And it will shoot more than 100 in one round. There 250 drum magazines made for those guns. And anonymous you talk out ignorance also. Because the modern AR-15 fills all 3 roles. I know of many people who varmint hunt and deer hunt with AR's. A person could walk into a room full of people with a sawed off shotgun with 00 buck and kill quit a few people with just 5 rounds. So then what? Shotguns next? That would be my weapon of choice anyway at close range. There are 8-10 pellets in 00 buck. With a short barrel you can spray a lot of lead in just one pull of the trigger.
Posted by: livefreeordieThe AR-15 is a fatastic target rifle
The AR-15 is a great target rifle, very accurate at range and is under attack. I saw someone say it is not for hunting or target shooting. That is incorrect. It is a great varment rifle and is used in most major target competitions. Banning these guns solves absolutely nothing and does nothing to prevent such an attack in the future.
Posted by: AnonymousNothing will change
If a man wanted to kill someone, or some people in the most recent case a school of children he would do so with or without a firearm. It has been done before with simply a knife and banning firearms will make things worst than better. China has some of the most strict gun laws and there have been a number of cases where by men have killed dozens of children using just a knife. Firearms may from time to time causes problems and incidents e.g. The most recent school shootings, but they also protect people from other threats.
Also even if firearms are banned, it will not eliminate the problem or firearms. Instead you will have armed criminals posing a risk to unarmed citizens. It wasn't the peoples fault this happened and they shouldn't be punished for it!Posted by: AnonymousIt's Our Constitutional Right
Our founding fathers wrote the second amendment so the general public could defend against and attack by a foreign government or against ours if it became corrupt. In order to do either, we must have comparable weapons. If we are to defend freedom, then we can't use revolvers against M16's or AK47's. Those who started this country established these rights for every American. Banning guns is not the answer, raising our kids to respect their elders, each other and themselves is. Also teach them gun safety. If someone is unstable, they should not have access to a gun. Guns are neither good nor evil but people are. If guns were banned, evil would still find a way to kill.
Posted by: AnonymousLethality does not constitute legality
If one wants to remove a wall, one can use a sledge hammer or rent a bulldozer. If one needs to hunt or defend themselves they can use a bolt action rifle or a semi automatic rifle "assault weapon". In both cases the latter creates an ease of use and sometimes has the potential to be more appropriate. However, in the wrong hands both the assault weapon and the bulldozer have the potential for lethality. As easily as one can walk into a room with the weapon and shoot young children, a bulldozer could smash through the wall of a classroom or rampage through a crowd of people, the bulldozer could even be considered the more dangerous of the two because it offers protection to the driver as they commit their atrocities. In point of fact, deaths from vehicular homicide in America outpace those from murders committed with a firearm. Why then are the politicians after gun rights, when homicides from sources other than guns outpace them tenfold.
Posted by: AnonymousA defenseless citizenry is every tyrant's wet dream !
If you can find a living holocaust survivor, please ask about the Nazi's gun policy leading up to WWII.
We currently have a full fledged communist occupying the White House. There couldn't be a worse time to disarm Constitution loving citizens. Our founders recognized the reality that evil exists in the world. That is why they blessed us with the Second Amendment.Posted by: AnonymousPunish us all for a few?
It is not the guns that are the problem. I work in a middle school and all kids talk about is shooting games. There are no dad figures at home to talk or set in their mind what is right and wrong.
You can still buy plenty of supplies like Timothy McVeigh or more than 5000 kids under 18 die from drinking each year.Posted by: AnonymousYou cant legislate to paradise/safety
No law is going to stop criminals or people with mental illness from doing harm. Safety is a personal responsibility. Police have no duty to protect you as an individual. So keeping this in mind, I'd like my m4 to be my protection and police are my back up. Im the first responder to a crime against me.
Posted by: AnonymousAnti gun nuts
Assault rifles are a new buzz word for these loons. They are semi automatic like most hand guns. Liberals should learn about guns before engaging in debate against them. If they're against AR-15's they should be against all semi automatics, but instead they say they're not against all guns, just military style weapons. They invent words to misinform the lazy and the stupid.
Posted by: AnonymousEven during the assault weapon ban there were assault weapons!
The 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) made machine guns fall under heavy government control. Then the 1986 Firearms Owner Protect Act banned future ownership of new machine guns for civilians, only those that were registered under the NFA are grandfathered. Then the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (also known as Federal Assault Weapons Ban that had a sunset date) to which the government determined what is a “Sporting Rifle” versus an "Assault Rifle”. Any semi-automatic rifle that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, and which has two or more of the following 5 features: telescoping or folding stock, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, and a bayonet lug is an Assault Weapon". So the manufacturers removed the evil features and kept on selling, it never stopped! Only the price when up, especially for pre-ban magazines. Since the government already defined an Assault Weapon, to ban them now would be to re-define all semi-automatic rifles as Assault Weapons. A better alternative is to ban SSRI drugs! They cause homicidal and suicidal tendency.
Posted by: AnonymousStricter background checks to start with
I am recently retired after 20+ years of military service. I now serve as a civil servant. I own 2 sporting riffles, one AR 15 and one WASR 10. I do not feel they need to be banned. I do however think that rules need to restrict who can own them. I am honestly worried about some of the individuals who own them. Every time I go to the gun range or local gun stores I see all these very young and immature kids with them and that worries me deeply. Is it partly due to the recent rash of combat games creating a sort of "gamer" generation? Is it due to the coolness of the doomsday prepping or zombie apocalypse? Perhaps, regardless the reason I thinks that for us to be responsible gun owners we should increase the age for ownership of these type of weapons to 25. We should also make background checks more stringent to include others in the home. Perhaps go as far to have a form of registration that should be accomplished every few years? Or how about a type of license similar to the one for owning full auto weapons yet not nearly as expensive enabling us to pay once for the license and own as many as we wish yet keeping the cost high enough to keep them out of young owners hands . Maybe we should limit to individuals with military, police, rescue backgrounds? Of course these are only suggestions. I want to keep my guns with the opportunity to purchase more while being mindful to the fragile state our country , our people, and our rights are in. Whatever is done needs to be in conjunction with addressing the state our mental health system is in.
Posted by: AnonymousReject the administrations's well intended, but ill-advised recommendations for the following reasons:
1.) Reject the Reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) and High Capacity Magazine Ban because:
a.) Inherently Fails to Deter Crime:
Inherently the proposed assault and high capacity magazine ban represents only an ad hoc solution to the issue of gun violence and crime. It first assumes an deranged individual will adhere to the law or survives committing mass murder-suicide to only face with additional sentences of violating the AWB, on top of life imprisonment, or death penalty for the multiple counts of murder or attempted murder. Deranged harden criminals intent in committing armed violence and crime, will not be deterred by any firearm or magazine restrictions, and will find other means of committing heinous acts.
b.) Empirically Fails to Reduce Gun Violence:
An independent study performed by Kope on the behest of the DOJ, after the sunset of the AWB (assault weapons ban) provision under the Clinton 1994 crime bill in 2004, determined there were no statistical correlations to be made for or against such legislation. Furthermore, a number of states such as CA, CT, and NY currently have the nation's most strictest firearm laws, consisting of state wide bans on assault weapons and/or high capacity magazines, and has also equally shown no statistical decrease of gun violence and gun related crime there after.
c.) Serves to Only Regulate the Law Abiding Citizen:
It is disconcerting that the implications of such proposal restricting a category of firearms and magazine capacity would instantly make thousands if not millions of law abiding citizens felons over night by mere possession of restrictive device alone. Assigning arbitrary limits to ammunition capacity, begs the question, why 10 rounds? How was this number was obtained, why not 9 or 11? This demonstrates the futility and absurdity of the proposed law. Legislators should realize that citizens, law abiding ones will follow the letter of the law, dot their I's and cross their T's, however criminals with little or no regard for the law will continue to possess these restricted items, effectively amounting to regulation of only law abiding citizenship and demonstrates the inherent failure with the capacity or cosmetic restrictions to deter or reduce gun violence.
d.) Threatens Public Safety:
At a time when many States and cities are dealing with budget cuts - which limits the resources and personnel available for law enforcement, these proposed restrictions only serve to diminish and threaten the ability of the people to defend themselves. The Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that the police are not constitutionally duty bound and responsible to guarantee safety. The court's ruling in the case of Warren v. District of Columbia is most alarming, where police officers negligent in their duties, resulted in three woman to being rapped repeatedly for over period of 14 hours. Restricting an entire category of weapons, and establishing arbitrary restrictions on magazine capacities, diminishes citizens ability to protect themselves from criminals, home intruders, rapists, murders, and psychopaths.
d.) Slippery Slope - Effectively Repealing the 2nd Amendment:
No law, no matter how overarching, will ever fully guarantee the lives of the people or prevent random acts of violence. New York State legislature passage of the NY Safe Act demonstrates the slippery slope that threatens the 2nd Amendment rights, the right of the people to bear arms and defend themselves against not just tyranny but to protect their home, families and loved ones. Governor Cuomo arbitrarily restricting magazine capacity from 10 rounds to 7 rounds, further restricts the law abiding citizen ability to respond to threats. The reality is Mr. Cuomo's and other's proposing gun control fundamentally believe the 2nd Amendment is archaic and citizens have no right to self-defense.
2.) Reject the Administrations Possible Use of Executive Orders to Legislate on Firearms because:
a.) Circumvents the People, the Authority of Congress, Unconstitutional:
The White House has indicated it's willingness to circumvent Congress and take executive action. But the executive branch should and ought not legislate, and at any time this is suggested this should be questioned. The constitutionality of such action which clearly falls under the purview of legislative branch.
b.) States Can Better Implement Policy:
Even if such action where constitutional rather than having a one size fit all approach, States are uniquely positioned to adopt policy. While other States have chosen to adopt their own versions of AWB, others States have choose to take action in providing additional security at schools, whether that be allowing trained school administrators to be lawfully armed while on campus, or creation of volunteer auxiliary police/security forces.
c.) Exploitation of Victims:
It is deplorable that the administration and media view this tragedy as only an opportunity to take advantage and exploit the fear, emotions and anger of the American people to push for further gun control legislation, with complete disregard to either constitutionality or effectiveness of such policy proposals, and even before those families have had the time to mourn the loss of their loved ones.
3.) Offer Counter Proposals, such as,
a.) Establishing a True Bipartisan Commission:
If serious and meaningful action is to be taken, then we should start with a true bipartisan commission, not like the one formed by the current administration, of members of both parties to investigate and hear testimony from panels of experts, one of similar scope and capacity as the 9/11 Commission which compiled a non-biased detailed report where cohesive and meaningful policy was later established. This should have cross party support, as no one can deny we should not have all the facts at hand, deny we should not fully explore all issues surrounding gun violence, exploring not just each mass shooting, and how policy might have mitigated or prevented the loss of life, to examine not just the firearms laws, but the social economic, mental health issues, of not just deranged individuals, but causes of intercity violence, the effect of media and more.
b.) Enforce Laws Currently On The Books:
Unfortunately, current law is not enforced, gun related offenses are not prosecuted to it's fullest degree given the current economic conditions, many localities, cities, counties, and States, have made budget cuts resulting in the reduction of personnel and lack necessary resources to combat crime. Congress can ensure that current Federal-State law enforcement grant and assistance programs continue onto the next and subsequent fiscal years.
c.) Establish a Federal-State School Grant/Assistance Program to Increase Safety in Schools:
In additional to extending current Federal-State law enforcement grant and assistance programs, a creation of a program designed to provide States resources to coordinate with local police or establish private or volunteer auxiliary police or security force at local school districts should be explored, in addition to exterior facility security upgrades or the installation of security systems.
d.) Establish Voluntary Gun-Buy Back Programs:
The establishment of Federal or State gun-buy back programs that will help to remove firearms from those localities facing increasing incidences of gun related drug or gang violence.
e.) Exempt State-Issued Conceal Carry Permit Holders (CCH) from "Gun-Free Zones":
Some States have taken action by exempting teachers whom hold a valid conceal carry permit to be able to carry upon campus without violation of the federal or state law.
f.) Continue to Reaffirm the Tiahrt Amendment and Measures to Protect Privacy:
The Tiahrt Amendment should continually be upheld and reaffirmed, as it ensure the privacy of citizens. The amendment ensures that the use of the firearm trace database would not abused to intrude or infringe on the privacy of firearm owners, as demonstrated with the lack of judgement from the Rochester, NY Journal News Paper publishing a map of gun owners homes. The amendment currently prohibits the BATFE from releasing information from the firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation.Posted by: AnonymousAssault Rifles account for Less than 1% of shootings.
Assault Rifles are not the problem, they just happen to get a knee jerk reaction from the public as well as politicians. The public doesn't understand what an assault rifle is and the politicians look at it as adding another notch on their belt as a political move. I'm an assault rifle owner and certainly not a wacko; I'm licensed to carry semi-automatic guns and have grown up with assault rifles; I've found myself in situations on our ranch that would certainly have ended differently if I didn't have an assault rifle - wild boars and pigs are extremely aggressive and hard to stop if they are attacking, not to mention they are often in very large groups.
Most people do not realize that the "assault" rifles we are talking about are semi-automatic, just like many other non "assault" style rifles and pistols. They do not just keep firing when you pull the trigger, you pull the trigger once for each bullet fired. Yes, they have a high capacity clip but reloading any semi auto weapon can be done in a flash.
Do not fear assault rifles, embrace them. It's better for you, your country and family if we know more about the guns and appreciate their ability to protect us when we are at odds. Know that if a mob breaks out in your city, you have a chance to deter them with an assault rifle. Also, if you are in the presence of a natural disaster area, you can thwart gangs of looters with this type of rifle.
These rifles are easy to maintain, accurate, easier for handicapped individuals to use and modular (affordable to maintain because of modularity).Posted by: AnonymousThe Point
The only reason I have assault rifles is to keep you from taking them. I don't hunt, I don't target practice that often, so why do I have them? Because they won't be needed until they try and take them away. Freedom means responsibility and that is something Americans are rapidly giving up. Freedom means freedom to prosper and freedom to fail. economically we are giving up our freedom to redistribution which makes us all tied into the government doing well, as a consequence we loose our freedom to prosper when the government fails.
Posted by: AnonymousI don't believe it will work ...
Germany also reacted to a series of school shootings with the Federal Firearms Act of 2002 that was strengthened with amendments in 2008 and 2009.
On March 2, 2011 there was a shooting spree that occurred in the Frankfurt airport that resulted in the death of two US Airmen and the injury of two others. Despite Germany's extremely restrictive gun laws (including mandatory psych evals and necessity tests), the fact the shooter was able to obtain a firearm (illegally, I might mention).
In the trial of Arid Uka, who despite the name was born and raised in Germany, one of the Airman Gursky informed the court, the airmen were all Air Force security personnel and had their traveled with their weapons. The were secured in their luggage on the bus but were without ammunition. Subsequently, the judge asked if he had a gun on him. “No,” Gursky said, “I wish.”
If a criminal in Germany can get his hands on firearms in one of the most restrictive gun ownership environments in the western world, recreating that environment here to any degree will not succeed.
We are dealing with symptoms rather than the actual problem.
Let me make a proposal ... require every holder of a drivers license to undergo a background check, a psychological evaluation and a drivers exam (written and practical) every two years. Anyone that wants to own a gun would have to have current driver's license that indicates they are suitable to own a firearm. This would also take people off the road that are a hazard to others and ... considering car accidents account for many more deaths of innocents than firearms ever have ... would be much better for the public good than any other measure currently proposed to further limit the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans. I will also mention, the 'right to drive' is not covered anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.Posted by: AnonymousBan Blunt Weapons First
Based on FBI Statistics, more people are killed with blunt weapons than all rifles (including bolt action and so called "Assault Weapons") combined. Given that anything can be used as a blunt weapon, banning them is impossible. So why are we trying to solve a "problem" that is not as bad as death by blunt weapons? Maybe we should focus on Drunk Driving which kills more people.
Posted by: AnonymousFreedom
As a mother I need to make sure my kids are secure and protected from criminals. Government will not be at my house 24/7 to protect us not even on the streets. Second Amendment was issued for a reason. What Mr. President wants to do is CONTROL and from there turn our COUNTRY INTO A SOCIALIST & OR COMMUNIST COUNTRY. NO WAY.
Posted by: AnonymousMy choice of security is no up for debate.
I choose to be an armed citizen. I choose to own and train with a semi-automatic Kalashnikov pattern rifle. If ever facing a large hostile force such as desperate people turned looter/criminal in a disaster I want all the firepower I can get, including 30 round magazines. I can handle myself and these weapons, don't blame or punish me if you can't. I don't hope for a bad situation, but I will be prepared for it. I don't need a sporting purpose to keep and bear arms. Vive la liberté.
Posted by: AnonymousBanning Assault Rifles will spark a Civil War.
I honestly don't care if there are others want assault rifles banned. And I don't know why there are others that are saying that we don't need one, YES WE DO! Slowly we are losing our rights that we are guaranteed by our founding fathers. Our president wants to create a police state just like the way that Nazi Germany did. Hitler also had banned weapons then claiming it would be for peace, but instead, it lead to the deaths of over 6 million Jews. Under the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed. We have this amendment for a reason, and guns don't kill people, people who use them do, many because it was stolen or illegally purchased. There are more murders every year from blunt weapons then there are guns. Banning guns will only cause a civil war since its very clear that its one of the first steps to a communist or fascist government, just like Communist Russia and Nazi Germany. Gun Control only causes more crime, and mass murders. So why do we need Assault Rifles, TO PROTECT OUR HOMES!
Posted by: AnonymousGuns will not be taken away
Get over it. Nobody, at least in the south, where we stand up for our rights, is going to just "give" up our guns. The government is going to have to show up at my front door if they want my guns, and I'm not going out without a fight. Which is why I don't think the government will try. It would cause a lot of havoc, possibly a revolution. The people on the left column are clearly brainwashed by Obama and the media, I still don't see how people could vote that communist back in office (a lot of stupid people) but they are the ones who are going to pay for it, not me. A LOT more shootings happen with pistols, and yet you idiots want to take away assault rifles for the RARE mass shootings, which can happen with any gun mind you if they have enough ammo. Every point that you idiots make are moot and sound like Obama talking himself. I feel sorry that you people are okay with your rights diminishing one by one. I, on the other hand, am not going to stand by and watch another right fly out of the window. The northern states might not care and are okay with being mindless robots for the government, but down here in the south we take pride in our rights and our guns, so come on down to the south, Obama, I dare you.
Posted by: Southernboy15Stop infringing upon my rights!
The 2nd Amendment doesn't exist for sportsmen. It doesn't exist for hunters to feel that they can hunt when they wish. It exists for one reason alone: to help prevent tyranny in government by keeping the populace armed. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
in·fringe
/inˈfrinj/
Verb
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
Synonyms
violate - transgress - break - contravene - trespassPosted by: AnonymousNo need for semi auto rifles?
And that is all so called "assault rifles" are. I hate that term. It is so unrealistic.
Just because it looks military doesn't mean it is. It definitely does not shoot as long as you hold the trigger. That is full automatic, as in machine guns.
So who uses semi auto rifles in this country?
First hunters.
Many hunting rifles are semi auto, meaning they shoot when you pull the trigger and that is all any "assault rifle" does, shoot when you pull the trigger.
Ranchers near the border with Mexico.
Why?
Because that's what drug dealers use.
Who else?
Many home owners use them now for protection because the criminal element has them. Wouldn't you want at a gun with the same defensive ability as a criminal might use?
Anyone in a natural disaster situation to protect themselves.
Like when?
Like when hurricanes destroy infrastructure and social order, causing widespread looting and killing.
Hurricanes happen quite often don't they.
You telling me if that were to happen to you you wouldn't wish you had protection like that in your hands? The looters very well might have them so why not you?
Thousands of sportsman love target shooting with their rifles. It is a fine tuned skill and like any skill it is an accomplishment to be able to shoot responsibly, accurately, and most of all, safely.
Open you mind up to the fact that the vast majority of gun owners are good and decent people. Safe and responsible as well as law abiding people.
People that would want to be their for YOU if the criminal element came knocking at your door and who would give their life while protecting you and your family if it came to it.
Think about all that while the president, the press, and all the radical anti-gun people are trying to turn the honest, law abiding, the safe and responsible gun owners into criminals by banning their now legal guns.
PLEASE.Posted by: AnonymousI said nothing
First they came for the assault rifles and not owning one I said nothing. Then they came for the shotguns and not having one I said nothing. Then they came for handguns and not owning one I said nothing. Then they came for the "sniper" rifles and not owning one I said nothing. Finally they came to me and demanded my granddads old single shot deer rifle...I started to say something but they told me to just shut up and say nothing.
Posted by: RALWishful Thinking
Too many of the people call for gun control are ignoring or unaware of two simple facts; No nation is immune to corrupted government, criminals will have deadly weapons -banned or not. It is common knowledge that these criminals will have a field day once they know the public is disarmed. To think that a weapons ban will make you safer, or that police can respond in time to save your life, is simply wishful thinking.
Posted by: AnonymousPeople are responsible, not firearms
Why do you blame guns? We don't tell companies not to make cars because people get drunk and injure/kill others in them. Likewise, how can you say that guns are responsible for the actions of those who use them? They don't work unless A PERSON pulls the trigger.
Banning assault weapons won't stop criminals, they will obtain them illegally anyway. By banning these weapons, you are only putting our lives in more danger because we won't be able to protect ourselves against criminals with assault weapons.Posted by: AnonymousSelf Defense
Having been on the receiving end of a serious attack on my person, and having threats made directly against my life and that of my family, I would never support such a ban. Having had to use a firearm in defense of my life I would NEVER support a ban that protects my life and that of my family. If such weapons are outlawed, then only the criminals will be armed. I'm sorry but I might not have the twenty something minutes to live that is the police response time.
Posted by: AnonymousNo
I often hear ridiculous comments like, "only the police and military should have semi-autos." As a 22 year and counting active duty military colonel, I vehemently disagree. I swore an oath to uphold the constitution, and part of our constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. Hunting, self defense, and target shooting are practical reasons to own firearms, but not the intent of the constitution. It is to ensure the people have protection from tyranny. Hyperbole such as, "citizens could never stand up to the U.S. military" is also poppycock. One need only look to any number of revolutions going on in the world right now. We are unlikely in danger of an American Spring event, but never, ever, EVER surrender your rights. Too many of us have died to preserve them, and they can so easily be lost. Cherish your liberty, fight for it, tell your elected officials how you feel, and while you're at it, demand security in schools and mental health overhaul to prevent these deranged killers from striking again. But don't dare say your constitutional rights are the domain of us in the military or the police. They are YOUR rights. Do not surrender them.
Posted by: AnonymousDon't take the right away from the lawful abiding who enjoy shooting
I have been a hunter and a firearms collector since I was a teenager. I enjoy all kinds shooting sports ranging from black powder, all the way up to civilian type military rifles. Banning certain types of rifles isn't going to solve the issue. The issue starts at home with the parents who, if there children want to get into shooting, should teach there children the proper respect for the weapon. What happened in Conn. was a horrible tragedy. The mother should never have aloud her son to have access to any type of firearm if she knew he had a mental illness. Again..."proper firearm safety starts at home with the parents and knowing what is happening with your children." Banning firearms won't curtail the issue. All that does is take the right away from law abiding shooting enthusiasts. All it takes is a little common sense on the part of parents and teaching there children the rights and wrongs of firearms if they want to get into shooting or hunting or if the parents have firearms in there house. "Common sense!"
Posted by: vette65Too late
With the recent statements from the President and Freinstein things were made WORSE. Now I want to own the gun just to be equal with all the nuts that went out and cleaned the shelves of AR 15s and 30 round clips.
It's way too late for con control. About 200 years to late.
I have a carry permit and voted for Obama. He has not passed one gun law. This time he made a big mistake.
The only defense now is more guns, not less.Posted by: AnonymousFunctionally no different than any other semi-automatic.
The weapons in question are simply semi-automatic weapons that look like military weapons. It makes no sense to ban a gun because it looks scary to people who don't know anything about guns. This is the equivalent of banning red cars because red cars look like they go faster than other cars. I've owned an AR15, and it was a fine rifle. It operated exactly like my Remington 30-06 with a wooden stock, only the AR15 shot a much less powerful cartridge. The .223 of the AR15 is much, much, much less powerful than most rounds used for deer hunting. If we are truly worried about guns being used for harm, why would we ban a less powerful weapon and leave more powerful weapons that function exactly the same way available? Again, the only reason to ban the AR is because it looks scary, and that is simply no reason at all.
Posted by: AnonymousQuick and to the point.
1. I own several "assault weapons" and have never even considered using one to kill anyone.
2. I may not need them, but you don't NEED a swimming pool either, hundreds of kids drown every year so should we ban those?
3. I'm pretty sure owning a certain type of firearm is not a clinical diagnosis of some mental instability.
4. And finally how can you say an armed citizenry couldn't defend themselves against a tyrannical Govt.? Afghanistan seems to be doing pretty well against the worlds only super power.Posted by: eromtapLess than 2% Gun Crime by "AR-type" Rifles: FBI Report
Any rifle is hard to conceal. Large capacity magazines jam quite easily. Feinstein even states she wants to ban guns that LOOKS "wrong." Yes, she wants pistols & shotguns banned in her newest "assault weapons" bill. Again, shotguns .... dismantle the 2nd Amendment and you can dismantle the 1st & any other ... Pandora's Box / Slippery Slope.
Posted by: AnonymousIt will do nothing
I think that criminals will always be able to get a hold of a weapon so instead of taking away assault rifles we should arm our schools with police officers. The ban also says already owned guns aren't banned and there are a few million already out there so if a criminal can't get one at a store he or she can just turn to a private gun dealer.
Posted by: AnonymousWHAT?
On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!
Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.
Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you’d like to know.Posted by: AnonymousCanadian
I have been watching the news, both American and Canadian. The propaganda is obvious. They tell you on the news that these "assault weapons" are to blame, that they are ONLY made to kill people. They suggest the only solution is to ban them, yet they have not even defined them yet.
Im sorry guys but it is outright lies designed to manipulate the population into going along with firearms confiscations and bans, to disarm the public, to take away their ability to defend their lives.
It is a war on self defense, a war on Constitutional rights. Obama took away your right to free speech in July of this year with his total and utter seizure of control of all media of all types in America- he can manipulate or turn off your cell phone, internet, etc, in the interest of state security at any time. He did this alone, with no votes- executive order.
Just so you know, many common hunting guns you guys are "ok" with WERE designed to kill people, such as the Lee Enfield 303 rifle. The AR15 used in these shootings was designed for hunting. When used against people the ammo is not even designed to kill, it is designed to wound. Modern armies use ammo that wounds- it saps the enemy's strength more to take 3 or 4 people out of a fight than to simply kill one. What actually decides if a gun is used to kill people or to kill animals is the PERSON behind it, the intent of the person.
Again, the news is filled with propaganda, one sided debates. The president himself TOLD you what the cause and solution was: guns, ban guns. You American people are not free, the media tells you want to think, now please ban guns from civilian ownership like you've been told by your president. Clearly only he, his police, and his armies need guns, to ensure your freedom and liberty are secure.Posted by: AnonymousOVER MY DEAD BODY
When one item has similar features of another item, does it make it the same item? Of course it doesn't! An Assault Rifle is a semi-automatic rifle with the ability to switch to 3 round burst or even fully-automatic that are utilized my a military force. The so called Assault Rifles that are sold at Walmart or Bass Pro have been altered from their original state, by tweaks of the internal parts. The bolt carrier assemblies have been shortened to throw off the timing if one was to attempt to convert it to full-auto. There is no auto-sear, plus the canal where the sear sits has been narrowed to prevent one from fitting. The whole trigger assembly as been changed. These so called Assault Rifles are no different than a semi-auto pistol, other than the size of the firearm and the max rage capabilities. Plus think of it like this...If they're outlawed and deemed illegal, then who do you think will buy and sell them illegally? CRIMINALS! The same people the government are trying to prevent from buying them! We are constantly under supervision by our government, we gave them the right to invade our privacy, detain us unlawfully, accuse anyone of being a terrorist, in the next 10 years we will be under 24hr. surveillance by armed unmanned drones, and the U.S. military was given the right to enter and detain anyone from their homes if they are suspected of terrorist activities! Now you want to allow them to take our weapons away?
Posted by: AnonymousNot Necessary
I'm a scientist, so therefore I like FACTS. Here's a fact that proves that banning assault rifles would be borderline meaningless. Taken straight from the FBI website: The number of deaths/homicides from 2007 to 2011 from handguns was 7,398. The number of deaths in the same years from rifles: (including bolt action hunting rifles) 453.
Based off this fact, if our nation really wants to cut back on violence by outlawing a weapon, assault rifles are clearly not the problem.
Sandy hook was a tragedy, there's no doubt about it. But don't let your emotions get the better of your logic and end up joining the bandwagon for something that will cost wayyyy more money than it's worth.
Stick to the facts, always.Posted by: AnonymousPeople Kill People
It is not guns that kill people, it is people who kill people. If somebody were to kill a person with a bat, would that count as a weapon of violence? Technically anything is a weapon if you think about it. Taking assault weapons away isn't going to change anything because criminals aren't going to abide by the law.
Posted by: AnonymousWithout them, our government can do whatever they want.
Our founding fathers did not say anything about hunting or sporting. By the way, AR-15s are great for hunting and many states allow them for that purpose. When the US was founded, the founding fathers knew that there may come a time when we would need a revolution again. The reason we won the Revolutionary War was because we had the same (or better in some cases) arms as our enemy. Its ironic that a British citizen comes to the united States of America and tries to tell us what to do. Piers Morgan needs to go back to his "safe" gun-free country. Let me make one thing clear, I do support some laws that you could call gun control. I support the idea of making it illegal for criminals to get firearms. That's already a law, but somehow criminals still get them. I also support keeping guns out of the hands of mentally incompetent people. That is also already a law. But still Adam Lanza and James Holmes still get them. If there was a guard in the elementary school, it would have given them an edge. Instead of hiding in a corner or running after him with nothing but you bare hands, they could have stopped him. I'm not trying to dismiss what the principal did as stupid, I think she was extremely brave and thought of others first. If she had a gun, I'm confident that Adam would be dead. The notion that having an unarmed audience In a movie theater makes everyone safer, is ridiculous. If James Holmes walked into that movie theater and saw return fire, he would have turned around and left. More guns in the right hands and less in the wrong hands make the world a safer and better place.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are the great equalizer in honest citizens hands.
If by "citizens" you mean "law abiding citizens", then absolutely NO. That's completely absurd to assume that banning assault weapons (high capacity semi-autos) will prevent assault weapon violence... Drugs are "banned" right? That law has made America safer right? Absolutely not! Why do law abiding citizens need assault weapons? (You hear it all the time.) Because THE CRIMINALS HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS! Are you going to defend your home against someone with a bolt action deer rifle when they are coming in with an assault rifle? Not likely. Home owners defend themselves over 2 million times a year with guns. It happens EVERY day and it will continue to happen. It is estimated that there are over 2.5 million assault weapons (and over 300 million guns) in the U.S. You are never going to control it even if you banned them all today. Guns give grandma and grandpa (and you and me) a level playing field when the bad guys come to rob, rape and pillage.
Posted by: AnonymousThe League of Shame
The countries with the greatest number of violent crimes per 100k residents are: UK, Austria, South Africa, Sweden, Belgium, Canada, Finland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, and France.
UK rate 4th with 523 burglaries per 100k residents, 5th with 164 robberies, and 13th with 1.49 homicides. Without more detail I am not sure what an armed citizenry would accomplish, but we, with all of our ailments including our firearm population are much less likely to encounter a violent crime than our cousins in England, our cousins are 3 times more likely than we are. So it is reasonable to conclude that an armed citizenry lowers the rate of violent crime!
Personally I would find a direct correlation but it certainly is a factor. Secondly, when it comes to the fatality rates when a massacre ensues the death rate is much much higher for those resolved by the police than by an armed citizen: 14.8 dead for those resolved by the police and 2.33 for those resolved by an armed citizen. The single biggest reason, is that the citizen takes terminal action long before the police are any where near the scene.
I know that I would rather live in a country wherein you have options to protect yourself, your loved ones and your property than a country that does not.
Finally, what is it about our culture? What has changed over the last 100 years a period wherein massacres accelerated? Video games of a type that are used to train military techniques to kill and keep killing as well as desensitize humans from the act of killing.Posted by: ddebuhrResearch our Founding Fathers' opinions
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
-- George Washington
A place of honor with all that is good....
An armed society is made of citizens, an unarmed one subjects.
Stop blaming THINGS for what PEOPLE do!Posted by: AnonymousMake legislation that actually has a basis in reality
Current attempts to ban so called "assault weapons," a term created by media to scare unknowing people, bases its restrictions on cosmetic features that make the gun look scary. There is little to no factual evidence ever circulating about what these features do. In no way shape or form does a stock that moves, a pistol grip, or a muzzle break take a hunting rifle(which you mostly seem to be okay with) and turn it into this massive high powered people killing machine. People defend themselves everyday from break ins, criminals and other attacks on their personal well being daily. I would wager that almost as many times as someone is unfortunately killed by a gun, someone is defending there own life with one. But what does the news show, that's right only killings to try and sway public opinion. If you look behind the bs you'll actually find tons of articles daily about people defending themselves. Another thing these so called assault weapons are actually not as high powered as the media would want you to think. The AR15 which so many people have a problem with shoots a 223 caliber bullet. Barely 25% heavier in weight compared to a 22lr the smallest bullet anyone typically shoots. All i ask people to do is look at facts and stop relying on emotion when deciding what they feel. Read real articles don't just peruse cnn, msnbc and think that's the only real news out there, read multiple sources for facts and stop acting like a bunch of idiots who don;t know anything. I'd just like to add i am not against background checks or including mental illness in gun legislation. But i am against childish responses to an issue that should have emotion left out of it. Also No weapon that is fully automatic has been manufactured in over 30 years, and the ones that do exist are heavily restricted and come with a price of more than $15,000 good luck getting one of those.
Posted by: AnonymousSecurity
This is the USA and we have the right to bear arms. If you have a problem with that there are plenty of countries that have an all out ban on guns. Feel free to move on over there and leave us Americans alone. Get back on a boat heading for the UK and stop trying to ruin what this country stands for.
Posted by: AnonymousIgnorance of firearms.
Lets get a few things straight. First, no citizen, unless they are a class 3 license holder can own a assault rifle. Assault rifles are what law enforcement and military use. What civilians own are Assault weapons, there is a big difference between the two, a difference that most anti-gun people are ignoring. An assault weapon has some of the same features as a assault rifle, but can only fire one round every time the trigger is squeezed. Your basic semi-auto pistols can do the same, and most gun crimes are caused by semi-auto pistols. Look it up, it's fact, AR-15's are very rarely used in gun crimes. Also the .223 caliber that most AR's shoot is a very small rifle caliber, a hollow point 9mm will make a larger hole then a .223, once again look it up.
Further more, what difference at this point, is a gun ban going to make? There are anywhere from 3 to 4 hundred million guns circulating in America. So even if you ban every gun tomorrow, what's it going to matter? They will still be out on the streets and accessible to everyone. In closing, many people wonder why us so called Rambos feel the need to own a assault weapon, to put it in simple terms, I own one because it's my right to own one. I own one for hunting, target shooting and for protection. I am a responsible gun owner, and to put me and people like me in with the criminals and murderers is very distasteful. Where I live everybody and their mother owns a gun, I come from a military family and guns are part of who we are, of who everyone is in this small area. We rely on them more then people think or know. And yet we have very little gun violence here, so obviously it's not the guns, it's the people. You liberals should take a trip down to good old KY and let us country "Rambos" take you hunting and target shooting, teach you a thing or two and maybe, we can all be on the same page and figure this gun violence out together.Posted by: Anonymous2nd Amendment?
Raising the age to, maybe like 25 would be a wise move. I believe every American with a clean record and of age should be able to own a gun and even an assault rifle. People should have an equal chance against criminals and criminals have assault weapons. I do however think that ownership of an assault rifle should require a class and a more extensive background check. Don't blame guns. Most gun owners are responsible level headed people. Only careless people kill innocent people and no gun law will ever prevent it. Guns or not, there will still be killings, shootings, etc.
Posted by: AnonymousThe term "assault weapon" is totally pointless.
By definition an assault rifle is a semi automatic rifle with the cosmetic features of an automatic weapon: bayonet mount/threaded barrel/grenade launcher etc. Pretty much anything that looks scary. So the term "assault rifle" doesn't actually mean a military weapon, it's just a gun that looks intimidating. The whole thing is totally pointless, seeing as another gun can do the same thing without looking scary.
Posted by: AnonymousIts called the bill of RIGHTS not needs
Why do law abiding citizens have to excuse themselves for owning certain types of legally obtained guns? Do you think criminals care whatsoever for the proposed new laws? The people behind this gun grab, and the ignorant media spreading misinformation makes me sick. Newsflash: The military doesn't use AR-15's and other similar semi-auto only guns that are available to the civilian populace. The wording and inclusive language of many legislative proposals really boils down to a ban on many guns that most people would not even consider assault weapons. New York's' restriction on magazine size to seven rounds effectively outlaws most semiautomatic pistols in one fell swoop. These numbers are not arbitrary, the intent is clear. What are these legislators really after? The gradual disarmament of the general public. There are many legislators who believe no one should have a gun. I disagree, and it is a right. Our founding fathers were very clear about this. Obviously there are evil people out there, and I would at least like to be afforded the opportunity to be able to defend myself in the most effective way possible. For some that is an AR (which by the way doesn't stand for assault rifle). Anyone that thinks that these bans will solve the true issue has a screw loose.
Posted by: AnonymousRight to self defense
If assault weapons are outlawed criminals will not care. They will get the weapons if they want them. Drugs are illegal but people get them anyway. This will result in criminals but not law abiding citizens having the guns. The only thing an assault weapons ban would do is create an armament imbalance.
Posted by: AnonymousThe 2nd amendment clearly states "shall not be infringed"
There is no reason why 'assault weapons' should be banned. The 2nd amendment clearly states that our rights to bear arms "shall not be infringed". The more we allow the government to take away our rights, the more they will continue to take away. Many of our rights have already been violated, and taking away our only hopes to ever protect ourselves will only give the government more power and us as citizens less. Remember the constitution was created during a time when England tried to take away the colonists guns. Our founding fathers knew what the outcome of this would be and therefore made sure, by putting our rights in the constitution, so as never to have us under a tyrannical government again. However, this is where we are heading and by taking away our rights to possess assault rifles would lead us even further into a tyrannical state. The government was also set up so that the people would be in charge of it, not the other way around, as it is now. This country is supposed to be a Republic (though many people forget this), our values and privileges have been slowly been stripped from us as citizens. Every American has the right to defend themselves against threats. Remember the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Do not let the anyone fool you into believing that stripping good law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights will protect you from criminals in any way. Banning 'assault weapons' is 100% unconstitutional. The constitution was not fought for so it could be changed.
Posted by: AnonymousNo settled definition, no ban
Because the ambiguous term "assault rifle" is not definable in a way that proves it's lethality when compared to some other semi-automatic rifle. I have a hunting rifle that does not qualify as an assault rifles that shoots as many bullets as fast as any assault rifle.
It is likely unconstitutional because of the difficulty with the definition. If you don't like the 2nd amendment, change it.Posted by: AnonymousBad guys have assault weapons, good guys should have them too
Pretty simple, but I won't waste finger movement attempting to persuade the sitting duck mentality that has grown throughout the years within our society, and was actually capable of re-electing the "ruler". All weapons are meant for assault... so, calling one group of weapons "assault weapons" is kinda racist, as far as guns go.
If my adversary, be it a criminal, a group of criminals, or a hostile government, has rifles capable of firing up to 200 rounds per clip; I should have the same tools at my disposal. This argument about "well you can't defend yourself against a hostile army..." or "i bet you think you should have nukes too?!" nonsense is just that. I don't intend to defend myself against a hostile army by myself. Myself and others that have a "free thinking" mentality and a love for "freedom" would have the tools at our disposal to guarantee our freedoms. Conflicts are not resolved by passage of law. Civil people are controlled by laws. Criminals and adversaries of the law are controlled by force. If passing laws were a solution, maybe we should try that over in the Middle East or any other war-zone.
The fact is, all of these new proposals would not have stopped Lanza from killing his victims. A gun would have. Passing laws would also fail to stop Holmes from murdering innocent people. A gun would have.
Now I hear it, "you proposing people carry around AR-15's!?" No, that would be tactically irresponsible. Rifles have their place. I don't have one with the intent of using it or showing it off in public. I have it in case 911 doesn't work or social order breaks down on a large scale. Think of a hurricane Katrina style event or a Haiti style earthquake hitting your town. Its you, your neighbors, and the 3rd day without being able to travel anywhere and resupply. People, democrats especially, will start to lose their manners and go into survival of the fittest mode. Large groups of people may do this. Nothing handles a large group better than a rifle.
"Is that ever going to happen?!" Probably not. But could it, yes. Rifles would not have been invented if there were no use for them.
Guns are a double edged sword. They are efficiently used for good and evil, or assault and defense. Our founding fathers saw this, and that is why we have the second amendment.Posted by: AnonymousA Ban Would Not Eliminate Assault Weapons
Assault Weapons are rarely used in criminal activity, but when they are, they almost always were not purchased and registered at a gun store. They are purchased the same way handguns used by gang members are purchased... The black market. So a ban on assault weapons is completely illogical. It's the same logic that is applied when someone puts up a sign at a hospital that says "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED". Who is the sign for?
Posted by: NH_PeteThere can't BE a debate
We are a Constitutional REPUBLIC. Our Amendments are set in STONE. They cannot be debated or argued. Period. There is no provision in the Constitution for what firearms we can own. Period. The first AWB was unconstitutional to begin with. The founding fathers were in a mindset to absolutely know what governmental tyranny was and they made it very clear that every citizen has the right to own firearms (of ANY type) to protect themselves against tyranny foreign and domestic. Don't try and tell me our government won't turn on us. Be a student of history and you will realize they most likely WILL turn on us and in fact are swinging that way now. Look, like I said to open this - this whole question is mute. Our right to own ANY firearm cannot be infringed. Ever. By ANYONE. This isn't about gun control, this is about PEOPLE control.
Posted by: Anonymous2nd Amendment isn't about hunting
The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to hunt, or a right to collect weapons, as such. It guarantees us the right to own weapons to protect ourselves from the greatest criminal organization in all of world history: government. Governments throughout history all around the world have been the greatest cause of murder, theft, and mayhem of all. Over 160 million people were killed in the 20th century alone by governments. The Chinese government alone killed 40 million people. Just because the US government hasn't gone to war on its own people since the 1860's doesn't mean that it never will. While the deaths of children are a tragedy for sure they pale in comparison to the millions killed by governments in just the last 100 years. We need to be able to protect ourselves from the government. If not us, then perhaps our children. However, the day that we are disarmed is the day that the government is no longer even nominally our servant. It will well and truly be our masters.
Posted by: sytheFounding Farthers
I would ask anyone reading this, do you really know what the 2nd amendment is about? The Federalist papers should help you have a better understanding… The intent of the 2nd amendment is clear, you just need to be able to read and comprehend.
We learn from history (at least some of use), again I ask people to simply educate themselves before they speak. When the Constitution was written the musket was the war weapon of the time, this same weapon was the also found in almost every home. Before you lash out in a passionate debate, step back and think, before you make a fool of yourself.Posted by: Anonymous"Assault Weapons: The Modern Musket"
Those who fear firearms usually know nothing about them. Yet, through media manipulation, constant propaganda, and countless violent films, anti-gunners believe themselves to have "enough" knowledge on guns to make informed decisions. For the past forty years they have chanted the words "assault weapon" until it stuck in the minds of average Americans and conjured up images of machine guns, assault rifles, and other fallacies. Thou they preach "assault weapons" more fervently than a priest preaches God, at least the priest understands what he's saying. Most anti-gunners fall silent when told about ballistics, gas systems, bolt mechanisms, proper sight picture, synthetic furniture, etc since they have no interest in learning about firearms, just in banning them. In short, "assault weapons" shouldn't be banned on the pretext of being "evil", since they are simply misunderstood in the public eye.
Posted by: AnonymousAmen to my brothers and sisters in arms
This country was settled by people with firearms on there sides. The old saying holds true to this day. Only locks keep the good people out and gun laws only keep people with a clear NCIC record from purchasing them. Put the money into 10 -20 life laws for gun crimes as they have in Florida and the jails. A gun is just a tool. It is the operator who uses it f
Posted by: AnonymousControl who buys and sells...
I own guns...LOTS of guns. I do, however, believe that it is too easy for me to buy and sell firearms from private individuals. As long as I am in my home state, I can sell to anyone else in my state with a simple Bill of Sale. This doesn't really sit well with me. I DO only sell to CCW holders, so I know that they are allowed to own firearms. But, it would be easy enough to sell to a felon without that self-imposed standard. Now, if someone wants to ban my AR-15. there will be a problem for me. I am a combat veteran, and feel I am more than competent to own, and safely deploy, this firearm. I enjoy competition shooting, 3-Gun, etc. For home defense, I still choose the 12 Gauge. It's powerful enough to do the job, withouut the sustained energy to rip through a wall and harm my family, or neighbor. I also carry concealed handguns. Never felt the need to pull one out, and probably never will. But it is there, if a criminal (who will have guns no matter what) tries to harm my family, or someone else near me.
Posted by: AnonymousNo not the law abiding Citizen
Only crooks will have guns if you make them illegal. I would be willing to bet that probably half of the people that want to ban guns probably can't legally own one in the first place. most likely they are convicted felons, or have some sort of domestic violence charge, who knows maybe illegals.
Posted by: AnonymousThe United States exists today because our Founding Fathers stood up against tyranny and fought for their freedoms.
Where private ownership of firearms is permitted, crime falls away. Criminals are much less likely to want to target people who very well might be armed. As far as assault weapons go, every able bodied citizen should be at the least well versed in the operation of firearms. Nations with a civilian militia are the most secure and formidable military forces.
Posted by: nathan.fallDo some research
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Where exactly is hunting mentioned?
As far as the assault weapons ban goes just remember gun laws only affect those of us that obey the law. If you honestly believe that a ban would take the guns out of the hands of criminals you are delusional. In reading some of the comments it seems as though the people for the ban believe that it refers to fully automatic weapons but in reality it bans the sale of any firearm with a vertical grip on the forearm or the ability to hold more than 10 rounds. Currently you cannot own a fully automatic rifle without going through a lengthy federal application process.
If you think banning firearms will solve the nations violent crime problem keep this in mind, Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States in 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun. Granted that study is a few years old but I think you get the point. For those of you that say a ban would make you feel safer remember that in 92% of violent crimes no firearm is used and almost 34% of murders are committed without a firearm according to the US Department of Justice. These are just a few of the plethora of reasons an "Assault Weapons" ban is ludicrous.Posted by: AnonymousMorons
An AK-47 round is only a .223 round. Hmmm, would that be less powerful than a .273? Why yes, it would. If you can count, you would know that. Engage brain before your mouth. A 223 round IS a common varmint and deer round. My reason to own one is because they are 223's, they are a cheap round to shoot and good practice. Who can afford their .300 or .273 on a daily basis? Not with the idiots in charge!!!
Posted by: AnonymousWe should ban evil and hate first
Let's not pretend that taking weapons from those who intend harm will stop them. Look at the UK where now knife violence is a major issue. They want to ban knives now, what's after that, banning sticks?
I own multiple ARs. I use them for competitive shooting, hunting coyotes and just target shooting.
There are people who that means nothing to and so they would argue that it's not a good enough reason. I've never hurt anyone and have no plans to but I should be punished. I'm sure I could find something that all the anti gun people like or maybe love. I could find examples of how that was abused or how people were killed because of it, like sports cars. Who needs a sports car? People die in them and because of them, should all sports car owners be punished? That's not fair.
I know this argument won't sway most anti-gun people. People who know little to nothing about guns or the truth behind gun violence statistics, who have never fired a gun or never been in a situation to have to defend themselves against violent attack. People who want to blame the hammer not the carpenter let's just hope law makers are smarter.Posted by: AnonymousNo!
I am from Australia where they have banned many guns and what do you think it did for the gun crime rate? It went up. Criminals still have access as many are smuggled in from overseas. So now law abiding civilians are not allowed to defend themselves. Banning only one type of gun leads to the banning of others. Believe me when I say this is a road you do not want to go down!
Posted by: Aussie2012Assault Weapons are those that can operate full auto
For the uninitiated, the AK-47s and AR-15s sold in the U.Sl are not assault weapons. They are simply semi-automatic rifles like any other. The military versions of the AK-47 and M-16 are weapons that are capable of operating the fully automatic modes. These are assault weapons and are already illegal in the U.S. without special licensing by the ATF. Get your facts straight before you go off half cocked.
Posted by: AnonymousThe 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
The words "for sporting purposes" are not in the 2nd Amendment. So whether or not an "assault weapon" is useful for hunting is irrelevant. Most people mean scary-looking AR-15s and others of its ilk when they say assault rifle and those are not assault rifles at all. They are semi-automatic civilian versions of assault rifles.
Posted by: AnonymousIs this really a question?
First of all, the term "assault weapon" is idiotic. Second, there are bad people in the world. Good people should have the very best tools to use to defend themselves. Multi-person home invasion teams are getting more and more prevalent. Semi-automatic rifles are one of the best tools to protect your home and family if one of these teams decides that your home is the next target.
Posted by: Anonymousthe fact is they don't
In truth all we have is decorated semi-auto rifles. That is what the media and all other anti-gunners are calling assault rifles. However, I believe that as Americans and under the 2nd Amendment, we should be allowed to own any type of firearm we want, including assault rifles if we want them. But right now in order to own an assault rifle, one that fires more than one shot per trigger pull, you have to have a special background check and pay an additional 200 dollar fee to own one. so there is a way, but for most of us, that is money we wouldn't spend, so we just have modern muskets.
Posted by: AnonymousAssault rifles are not always more dangerous than other guns
Depending on the situation, different guns are more dangerous than others. If, say, I am 500 yards from you, then a hunting rifle such as a .30-06 or .308 will be much more effective than a .223 assault rifle. This goes hand in hand with what was said immediately below my post about "Monumental Ignorance." If you know nothing about guns, I see no reason why you can have a legitimate, sensible opinion on the matter.
Posted by: AnonymousAnti Gun Idiots
Guns keep you safe not from wolves or wild animals, but the unlawful people who regardless of what the law is will not follow the law. I use a AR-15 to hunt with so don't say you can't hunt with them. I have the right to keep and bear "ARMS" it is not specified nor shall it be by any man or woman or government what I can and can not own. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect your opinion but just because you don't like guns DO NOT try and infringe on my rights and my FREEDOM. You don't like guns fine don't own one no one is DICTATING to you, That you Have to own a gun you are FREE to decide for yourself weather or not you want to enjoy one of our freedom. You think that guns are the evil and if they weren't here everything would be peace and love. Fact is if guns were not here then you would see more violent crimes with knives bombs things that are so violent you would cry for a gun to feel safe. A true assault weapon is a full automatic weapon and yes these firearms are not for hunting but there are lots of shooting sports that use these firearms. Who are you to dictate to anyone what they can and can not own. I am free and the reason I am free is due to Firearms and citizens not soldiers who were armed who stood up to defend there country when our military wasn't enough. The reason you people think we don't need them is because we have them and that keeps other nations from ever even thinking of invading our land. AK-47, AR-15 these firearms that are in many of our homes are not assault weapons they are not full automatics which require a special license Background check and the price of full automatic weapons is around the $10,000.00 mark. if your everyday gang banger has a full automatic weapon then it wasn't bought in this country from a dealer it was smuggled in by illegal boarder jumpers. What you people need to know is Guns are not evil the evil is in the person who is using it in a evil way. I could take my car a kill just as many people as a gun could would you blame the car or me. If they day ever comes that the American people are needed to defend this country once again would you rather have a neighbor who is armed and can defend you and the ones you love, or would you rather have no defense. If world war 3 breaks out tomorrow and our forces are over seas and stretched thin and we are attacked here at home you can believe there will be a uprising of TRUE PATRIOTS who will stand up for there Freedom and yours even though today you strive to strip those same people from there FREEDOM and RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
Posted by: jerod.burgessof course
I have the constitutional right to! Even if you ban the guns then all you do is leave the people that follow laws outgun'd. As far as im concerned the founding fathers used the most state of the art guns of the time. They didnt say if guns get advanced and upgraded then you cant have them anymore. Not only is there hunting, protectioning, and competition but it is also for fun. So are you saying that my car should be illegal because it says 160 on the dash and the highest speed limit in america is 80mph so i shouldnt be allowed to have it
Posted by: elplaga08Are there no fighters left here anymore?
Is this what the country I've sacrificed my life for is really turning into? "submit or perish"? "Right to bear arms because of how necessary a gun was for survival"? "Give a young punk an assault rifle"? "Force me to submit"? "People are not smart enough to make their own decisions and need the government to make decisions for them"?.... It just gets worse, I'll stop after reading "take away all my rights, every last one of them, just keep those icky guns away from me and make me feel safe."
You people are pathetic. Submit or perish? Easy decision for me. Perish. You cowards would so easily submit rather than die for what you believe. It's that same mindset that would easily accept the mark of the beast (assuming most of you are Christians). I will gladly die with a clean conscious than a heart filled with regret and what ifs. Guns and "assault weapons" give you everything you have and they made America what it is today, which is failing because of human beings like you that think we are too dumb to make our own decisions. Speak for yourself. I rely on me and me alone. Being a grown man, I know what's best for me and don't need anyone to tell me.
Every single last one of you fear death and want every possible way to avoid it. I got some good news for you, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. There is no way to avoid it so you do all you can to postpone it. Live your life in fear, let it dictate who you are and what you believe. I'll know with every single breath I take, even the last, I am a man and will lay down my life for people I love and innocent strangers. I carry a Beretta 92FS everyday, everywhere. This is also an M9 (pretty much), the U.S. standard issue sidearm, the first pistol I ever shot (Army, active duty, 11B, infantryman), before I was even old enough to vote. I go to the range weekly. I'm a fairly decent shot. I hope that one day someone like me saves one of your children from one of those crazy bastards that, if they didn't have a gun, they would use blades, HME, vehicles, bats, etc., because cops take a very very long time to get to the scene, and you will see just a fraction of the amount of good guns are truly capable of. You'll never understand, you can't. You see life one sided. Well there's a whole other life you know nothing of. Oh, I'm a very proud owner to multiple firearms. S&W model 59, Taurus PT809, Taurus PT845, Taurus PT1911AR, Beretta 92FS, Remington 870 express super magnum, Mosin Nagant, custom AR-15, AK-47. I have never even intended to use then for harm on others and will not unless someone is threatening my, or a loved ones life limb or eyesight. If necessary, I have trained to do so well. Because I rely on no man to protect me and, my family. I know they're ok, I've made the preparations to make it so.Posted by: AnonymousBasic Rights
There is a good reason for having an assault weapon.
They are one of our basic rights as an American citizen. If we didn't have that right, then we might as well live in England or France or some other European country. I have a gun, not because I like to shoot, but becuase I want to protect my family. If someone broke into my house, then I would exercise my right to carry and shoot them. And if we ban assault weapons, then we might as well ban knives, forks, pencils, and anything else that can harm someone. You can kill someone just as easily with a gun as you can a knife or a pencil. So just because something is dangerous we outlaw it?! so what something is dangerous, if we are scared of something then we should face it head on and not hide in our burrows like frightened rabbits. We are human! If being human means to have the right to carry, then what government has the right to stop us? If God or whoever governs the universe didn't want us to have weapons like that, then he wouldn't have let us invent them. If that is how the US approaches a topic, then the underlying reason will never be addressed. People are scared of guns because they don't fit some peoples images of a perfect life.Posted by: FairyTailNO
United States citizens should continue to have the right to bear arms. Saying there is no reason to have them is an ignorant statement. When it comes to the point of life and death that weapon can save your life. No one says to kill the person coming after, shoot them in the leg to disable them from coming at you anymore. I'm not sure I want police officers to be the only ones in the country to have be able to carry an armed weapon. I want to be able to feel safe in my own home. It's stupid to even consider banning one of americans' oldest rights. just.. NO
Posted by: AnonymousDefine the Term Assault Weapon
Wouldn't any weapon be considered an assault weapon if it is being used even in self-defense against another individual? There is not a clear definition of the term "assault weapon." Also, the constitution does not distinguish the difference between a butter knife and an M16 in the second amendment. That being said, if technology changes 100 years from now, and let's say guns become obsolete as a way of protecting ourselves, what will be "allowed" constitutionally? Technology changes - the Constitution DOES NOT CHANGE; the "right to bear arms" is not up to the government to decide what is legal and what is not legal to own and use. What all the people who voted "YES" on the left do not realize is that the Constitution protects us from OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. This is the foundation of what makes our country so great. I believe that if individuals do not like our rights as stated in the constitution, they should choose to live where the laws better fit them...like France or Canada. To make an analogy - you don't move to a neighborhood with an established HOA and then try to change the laws - move to a different neighborhood!
Posted by: AnonymousUnited States citizens should not be banned from owning assault weapons, because we never know when the war is going to tread on our home soil.
United States citizens should have every right to possess an assault weapon. Was 9/11 too long ago now to remember what happened? These attacks could land on our home soil at any point in time, while the majority of our military is overseas. If we are unarmed here at home, and there is an attack, then we've no way of defending ourselves.
Posted by: AboardTodWhats next, no more driving your car because people die from that too???
Weapons are used for hunting, recreation, and for home deffense. "Assault" is only a name for these weapons said by politicians. No gun maker lables there gun an assault rifle. If you think that AR 15 stands for " Assault Rife" than your saddly mistaken. it stands for Armalite, the company that originally made the Ar 15. If you say guns kill people than I can blame my mispelled words on my pen. Honestly if every person in the Us carried a gun, "except felons, mentally ill people" there wouldbe a lot less crime. Would you walk into a store demanding money if you knew that atleast 5 other people in that store had a gun???? I think not. Just my oppinion.
Posted by: AnonymousGovernment has no right
Goverment has no right to tell the people what they can and can't own with firearms. End of the day, if someone wanted to illegally do something with a assault weapon then they could just as easily, if not more easier, get it on the black market. And if they didn't use that then they'd use something else. End of the day, it's not what they want, IT'S WHAT WE WANT.
Posted by: AnonymousThe founding father could have never envisioned the internet
This new radical contraption was never envisioned when writing the first amendment. On the internet someone can shoot dozens of cop killer ideas out to millions of people. Back then all they had was books and stuff, THE INTERNET IS TOO POWERFUL WE MUST BAN IT FOR THE CHILDREN!
Posted by: AnonymousNo
I am here to start a new debate that cars should be banned from citizens. They kill more people a year than weapons do. So help me people ban these evil killers and remember it's for the children.
Posted by: AnonymousEvery citizen is part of the militia of the United States
As a US citizen it is your duty to protect the country from all enemies foreign and domestic. If invaded, and our military and law enforcement are unable to fend off the invaders, the people of the United States will be the last line of defense. Also, the people of the US should never be afraid of it's own government. A gun in the hands of every law abiding citizen protects the people if the government decides to turn it's back them.
Posted by: AnonymousGun owners are true americans
Assault Weapons are Machine guns by design and definition.
They are already regualated by the ATF.
semi auto AR-15s are not assault rifles, they are just hunting rifles with 30rd mags which makes them no more dangerous than your daddys semi auto rifle.
people need to wake up and understand we are the greatest Nation on this planet due to proud gun owners, who in the time of need will save our nation from all enemies both foreign and domesticPosted by: AnonymousAnti gun people -
perhaps if you're so terrified of our "assault weapons," why don't you go out and buy a bigger gun that me? it's called the whose dick is bigger contest, and so far, i'm winning. assault rifles don't make ordinary people go on shooting sprees. i've have assault rifles since i was 16. drugs, alcohol, and unloyal spouses drive people to go on shooting sprees. and if you check most records of shootings in america, rarely is an assault rifle ever used. there is such thing as the batfe that regulates such things as fully automatic weapons that are damn near impossible to get, so you should do some research before assuming one can walk into walmart and purchase a machine gun.
Posted by: AnonymousNo. Citizens legally own "assault rifles"
Other than those who have paid the $200 tax stamp and paid the huge price ($15000 and up), which tend to be collectors, have assault rifles. Thus, banning then has no effect.
Posted by: AnonymousAre you willing to shed blood to ban and confiscate them?
Some won't be so willing to give them up without a fight. Are you so sure you want to take them that you would be willing to shed blood to enforce a confiscatory ban?
Posted by: AnonymousAnd pencils make everyone misspell words.
Next it'll be banning all knives, then glass bottles, then rocks, and on and on and on, it's not the object that performs the action, it is the human being in control of that action. The criminals will always have access to these weapons, why can't law abiding citizens protect themselves with the same.
Posted by: AnonymousPunish criminals not the tool the use to commit the crime
Trufully speaking Assault weapons are very restricted alreasy, in that an Assault weapon is a SELECT FIRE center fire rifle or pistol. As per GCA 1986, no fully automatic firearms are allowed to be built for civilian sale.
As to law abiding citizens being able to own them or semi auto rifles and pistols, why not? Many semi auto rifle and pistols are used for hunting. Such as 22s for small game, up to 30-06 for large game. In fact the AR15, which is a semi auto variant of the M16, is a very popular rifle for varmint and predator hunting.
As to home defense and recreational shooting or plinking, semi auto rifles and pistols are very popular as well. Many semi auot rifles and pistols are the go to guns for competivie shooting and in the case of home defense or concealed carry the semi auto handgun is one of the most popular choice.
I see no reason why oridinary law abiding citizens such as myself should be prevented from owning so called assault weapons. As I said earlier go after the crimianls not the tools they usePosted by: AnonymousIts more than a self defense tool
So called assault weapons belong in the hands of American citizens because its our right to keep and bare arms against a tyrannical government. Its not about hunting, sporting arms, Or just home defense. Its the fact that we have these weapons that protect the rights of EVERYONE to open their mouths and speak up against tyranny. Without the second, How do you protect the first.... Its give you the right to open your mouth and speak out. Only a fool would put himself in the position of being unprotected from the ruling class. Without them you become nothing more than a slave that throws rocks in protest.
Posted by: AnonymousCitizens in the US should not be banned from possessing assault weapons.
Possessing weapons of any sort is one of the freedoms of being a US citizen. I don't think this should change. I want to be able to possess what ever weapons I personally see fit. Who knows when I may need them in this day and age.
Posted by: LorenaH2nd amendment is not negotiable
Assault weapons are select fire meaning they can fire in semi-automatic mode of full automatic mode. Full automatic weapons are legal in the us provided you perform the song and dance mandated by the atf. It's not easy to get actual "assault weapons." The media tends to group any and all weapons into "assault weapon" status but this just isn't the case. 1. Others in the yes side have posted "kill hundreds at a time." Yeah, right. Give me just one reference where this has happened.
Posted by: AnonymousIf you outlaw assault weapons, then only outlaws will have assault weapons
We must always ensure that law-abiding, good people can have just as much firepower as those who try to victimize them. This principle also applies to the government, or an "outlaw" government, if you will. The constitution of the united states was written so that we the people control the government, and not the other way around. Citizens must always be able to bear arms strong enough to fight back against a tyrannical, oppressive government. This is what keeps the government in fear of it's people, and it's power in check. It's what keeps our individual freedom intact.
Posted by: Anonymous2nd amendment should be protected.
No. But maybe raising the age to 25 would be a wise move. I believe every American with a clean record and of age should be able to own a gun and even an assault rifle. People should have an equal chance against criminals and criminals have assault weapons. I do however think that ownership of an assault rifle should require a class and a more extensive background check. But even then wackos are wackos just as in Norway. Don't blame guns. Most gun owners are responsible level headed people. Only wackos kill innocent people and no gun law will ever prevent it.
Posted by: AnonymousThe concept of the civilian owned "fully Automatic Assault Weapon" is a fallacy
The term "Assault Weapon" is a political term used to excite the passion of those ignorant of the facts.
The AR-15 is a light weight ergonomically designed low recoil semi-automatic rifle that fires an accurate, small caliber, high velocity, medium power (not high powered) round.
It is very commonly used for hunting and target shooting.
It is much less powerful than most common hunting rifles like the .30-06 or .308.
The civilian version of the AR-15 is NOT fully automatic and is functionally no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. Although nearly identical in external appearance, the semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally different from the full automatic M-16. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable. Aside from that, simple possession of the hammer and trigger mechanisms for a fully automatic version is already a federal crime.
As an aside, I target shoot at 200 yds with an AR-15 and participate in Tactical Carbine competitions at ranges of less than 30 Ft. With the same rifle. It works very well for both purposes.
I have a friend who also uses a similar lightweight small caliber semi-automatic firearm.
Both rifles use the same detachable magazines and fire the same cartridge.
Under the proposed legislation (or current law in some states), my rifle is now classified as an assault weapon while his is not.
The main difference between the two firearms is that, to use the language of the law, mine has “a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon” and his does not.
Can someone provide me with a logical explanation why this one, apparently cosmetic, feature can (or should) make this difference?Posted by: DSTEVENSThey should be allowed.
There is no reason to ban assault rifles. Just because they have the ability to kill people doesn't mean that they should be banned, because any gun can kill people. So then that means that every gun should be banned because any gun can kill someone if used in the right hands.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, they should not be banned for their own protection.
People should have the right to use firearms in their protection. What if people had entered their homes and tried to shoot them? What if they had children? People need something to protect themselves. Yes, there is home security, but it's not enough. We have rights. We must embrace them.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns aren't just for hunting or home defense!
While hunting, sport shooting, and home defense are legitimate uses for firearms, they certainly weren't the only purposes the framers of the constitution had in mind. Another reason for the second amendment, possibly the most important purpose, is to protect us from governments. Either a foreign nation, or from our own government. The founders understood an important phrase. "Those who hammer their swords into plowshares, shall plow for those who didn't." When the populace can overthrow their leaders, the ruling class has to follow the rules and serve their constituents. This is a government by the people, for the people. The tactic seems to be to divide us, racially, gender, class, etc. We willingly divide ourselves into smaller and smaller groups in order to qualify for tax exemptions, or some other pittance from the government, that in turn divides citizens of this country away from one another into smaller and smaller groups, increasingly dependent on the government for assistance, and less and less on one another. We no longer trust each other, and are afraid of our neighbors and if they have a gun. People are quick to forget that politicians can kill more people with the stroke of a pen, than a psycho with a machine gun and captive victims. Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither. I feel that in these times and the times that lie ahead, those who trade freedom for security, will find neither, whether they deserve it or not will be a moot point. Less than 2% of crimes involve assault weapons. 100% of the government coups in the past century have. They don't fear for your safety, they fear for theirs as they strip away the last of YOUR liberties and independence. If you want the government to take care of you from cradle to the grave , there are plenty of administrations on this planet willing to do just that, leave my country the way it was, our history speaks to the efficacy of our methods!
Posted by: AnonymousA Double Edged Sword
Every weapon has the potential to kill. It is not the weapon itself that kills the innocent, the bystanders, the common folk. It is the mind behind it. A gun in the hand of a police officer or the military is often considered safe, and necessary, no? Is it so hard to believe that there are other people who are just as capable of using weapons for responsible and necessary purposes as these people that we already trust with weapons? Some of you at this juncture will argue whether the military or police use weapons for good necessarily, but that is not the point. There are responsible people who can own weapons. Who knows? Maybe they will save your life someday. Then there are people who are not responsible, and should not own weapons. But just because you are afraid of weapons and their capability does not mean that you should ban them simply because of what might happen. Rather there should be more control on WHO can own a weapon, not control the availability of weapons themselves. You might find yourself needing a weapon one day to protect yourself (I don't see it happening, but it is a possibility). But regardless, you cite the police, and the military as our protectors. They are not omnipotent. They are not omniscient. There will be times, when it is simply a person's own duty to protect themselves, or suffer whatever the consequences may be. I do not own a gun. I don't know if I ever will. But I will support that it is a person's obligation and privilege to have at their disposal the means for their own immediate protection. I hope no one will attempt to instigate the argument of "where does it stop? Nukes?", because then you are simply wasting everyone's time. If assault rifles are truly semi-automatic, then there doesn't seem to be a great distinction from pistols. In that case, why should there be any discrimination on which is legal and which is not?
Posted by: AnonymousSpend more money and take more freedoms.
So if a drunk man hits and kills a car full of babies, are you going to ban alcohol or vehicles?
What about a man setting fire to a house with a family inside? Going to ban matches and lighters?
This argument is pointless. America is about freedom, not guidelines and restrictions for things we are allowed. More people die from drinking and driving then deaths from firearms. More people are killed with pistols than assault rifles. So how is Chicago doing these days with their gun bill? Seems like a safe place to live with no guns right? If you spent more time complaining about the debt America has than firearms, things could be a lot different. I own a few different assault weapons for sporting use and for fun. Am I a criminal? Absolutely not. I love our country and what we apparently stood for! This doesn't have anything to do with guns. It's about criminals and the mentally ill, and most importantly how you raise your kids! I blame most of this on parenting. You ever notice how as times go on kids grow up in bad situations? Its not the ar-15 or the ak47... it's the way you are raised and brought up. So go worry about real problems like the economy and maybe being a better parent. Teach your kids about the Bible and guns; maybe this world will still have a chance!Posted by: AnonymousAssault weapons are not the problem, bad people are; period! See supporting argument please and spread the word. - Concerned citizen!
To the point, a former student at a Florida university had a handgun, a few IED's (improvised explosive device's) and yes one assault type weapon (.22 c al) - which wasn't even a real assault weapon by class. An assault weapons ban would not have touched any of those weapons (except for possible the capacity of the clips); however, he would have been able to inflict huge impact with these instruments (regardless of type).
The police arrived in minutes and the roommate was cool and locked himself in a bathroom, behind another bedroom locked door and called 911 (bravo!). This is how we help mitigate crazy/evil people in addition to better mental health checks, good policies, better police and civilian training all around. Unless we get rid of all guns (every type - which is not practical), this is our best approach.
Don't attack one type/class of weapons that only affects 4% of the killings/crimes and expect any significant impact. This will cost more money for everyone (mostly gun sports users; i.e. more expensive ammo, guns, etc.) and detract attention /resources from law enforcers and prosecutors to enforce and protect versus managing assault weapons bans, more involved registrations, etc. Put that money in criminal processing, mental health, etc. not on law-biding citizens.Posted by: AnonymousIt's not about hunting.
Just to get this clear, assault rifles are not just meant for killing. The person with the assault rifle is what kills. Assault rifles are very accurate and shoot at a high rate of speed. Like I said before, a piece of metal doesn't kill, it is the finger pulling the trigger that kills
Posted by: AnonymousIt would not deter crime .
More people are killed from handguns and hammers , and only about 1% of Americas 190 million gun owners , actually own assault guns, so how would that stop crime? Law abiding citizens should have the right to feel more comfortable to defend themselves and if that involves using an assault weapon because it holds more ammo which would be helpful if he or she were to be attacked by a group of criminals.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, there are responsible people who have assault weapons within their home.
No, times are changing and the government has not shown protection within the United States. Since outwardly attacks like 911 has taken place. We need our own protection within our homes. Everyone who has an assault weapon does not have to be insane or out of control. Saying that assault weapons should be banned is like saying all liquor should be banned. Would this stop drunk drivers killing innocent victims?
Posted by: Anonymous