Why assault rifles and 30 round magazines Should be banned...

LOL, and yours wasn't?

 

your still blathering about this, so I'll bite.................stats and records to support such a statement?
But based upon your definition, I'm anything but............if that's what you're claiming any of us in are.
Only a sicker mind than those "mentaly deranged " "convicted felons (with a few exceptions) would even say something as insane as that, much less believe it

 

Stats and records for what?

 

it sounds as if you are prepared to argue that these people have "unrestricted and unregulated" access to "full auto" weaponry.
cite your sources and stats for this statement. Either that or you're inventing your next argument.
ie. legal definition of "gun nut"
record or cites for felons or mentally deranged that have possessed and used full auto weaponry in any mass shooting. Stats? Cites?
Anyone who would even entertain such thinking should probably see a specialist

 

antigun nuts: Those who beat their heads against real history concerning gun bans.

 

Liberty requires responsibility. For those individuals who are not responsible, they do not deserve or get liberty. So how do we decide who is responsible? Well, it is obvious that children can't be expected to be responsible, so we make it their parent's job to be responsible for them. This is something that everybody has agreed upon, and I believe it is fair for parents, to a certain extent, to be "tyrannical" over their children. I don't mean that they have the right to hurt a child, but they have the right to take certain liberties away such as the freedom of speech. The government, understandably, attempts to define the age at which people become "grown ups" and have the right to their freedoms. A criminal has shown that he cannot be responsible with a gun, so he therefore loses his right to the gun. He is very comparable to a child, like many Americans who rely on the government to take responsibility for their life.

 

A shotgun is an even more effective device for home protection. Assault weapons are generally craved by those with evil intentions. I am a life long target shooter and hunter and i am offended by most of those I see at target ranges or in the field using assault type weapons with high capacity magazines. We need to be aware that banning such weapons will only have a limited effect on the violence in our culture. we also need to have strong mental health care available and programs that promote healthy communities that foster and nurture families as well as those on the marginal side of the spectrum. But we would be best not to let the NRA dictate to us and (especially to politicians) what is good for us.

 

Ah, now I see. You're just making a straw man.

I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing against your position that convicted felons and the mentally deranged should have unrestricted and unregulated access to fully automatic weapons.

You dodged my question: Should they have unregulated and unresticted access to grenades, self propelled rockets, and shoulder fired ground to air missiles too?

How about teenagers? You think they should have nrestricted and unregulated access to these weapons too?

 

You certainly don't have to convince me that there should be some restrictions and regulations on who can have weapons and what type. I'm not the one whose position is that teenagers, convicted felons, and the mentally deranged should have unrestricted and unregulated access to fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, and ground to air missiles and whatever else you might through into the definition of "arms" because of a ideologically rigid view that the right "shall not be infringed."

 

They do you do know that there are lots of teenagers in the military and those are weapons they train on. Don't judge a persons responsibility level by age.

 

That's fine. But I don't think a 13 year old ought to be able to walk into Walmart and pick up a fully automatic weapon and a dozen grenades off the shelf just because some of them might be responsible. Do you?

 

Castrating all male citizens with a rusty knife works too (to reduce violence etc) why not do that? The reason we NEED a constitutional protected right is so obvious to freedom loving Americans I am not going to say it again. As for other reasons for wanting a ‘so called’ assault rifle, and it is called that out of pure ignorance or an intentional attempt to deceive the naïve anti gun flowers in our society, scroll back to my reply.

reva

- - - Updated - - -

In the US Army a 13 year old can not join the military.

reva

 

The constitution gives you the right to bear arms so that the citizenry may maintain their free state. If you read into the founders' thoughts on the matter, and use some logic, you can see that they wished the people to be armed because it would allow them to throw off any attempted oppression, whether from outside or inside their country. It is designed to be a deterant against the US government getting any ideas about becoming tyranical. That is it's prupose: defence of the citizens, from all threats. History teaches us that an armed populace has a greater chance of throwing off their rulers - the American Revolution is the best example of this. No one ever thinks their country will become despotic, but they can and do, and so retention of the ability to resist is essential to the survival of a truly free state. If it allows some criminals to kill a few more people because they can more easily get better weaponry? So be it. If your ancestors proved anything, Americans, it's that they were willing to die to attain freedom for everyone else. 'He who gives up essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither' - I believe that quote is along those lines. Do not discount the slippery slope.

 

no one has insinuated that schizoids or mass murders should own any such weapons. That has come from you. You are the one making unsupported allegations

 

I am not in favor of anyone having unrestricted access to any type of weapon. I am in favor of anyone having access to weapons if they have shown they are not a danger to society, which includes grenades, fully automatic weapons, and rocket launchers. As soon as they have demonstrated that they cannot handle those rights in a mature fashion. Felons, teenagers (through consent from the governed), and mentally incapable persons should not have access to these weapons.

People are competent until they prove they are not in a free society with liberty as a corner stone. Allowing access to weapons is a liberty driven idea because it empowers a person to have direct impact on their own destiny instead of relying on another person to provide for their safety and security. Being secure in your persons and property is not just a check on the government, but a check against every other person in society as well.

 

The reason these guns should not be banned is because we are a free society and the government should not intrude into our personal choices unless there is a substantial and compelling reason to do do. The fact that some people think there is no reason for a citizen to own these guns is not a compelling reason to take away the citizen's right to own them. They have NOT been tied to a substantial threat to the general public and when you boil down the opposition's arguments they come down to "well I just don't think people should own them" or " they look scary".

An automobile is a serious weapon that could be used to kill hundreds of people if driven fast into a large crowd, but this rarely happens and we are allowed to own and drive cars. The same is true for these weapons. They have no more potential to kill than an automobile does.

 

You're right, I completely agree. After doing some research, I realize that my premise that a tyrannical government "can't rise in America" was very ignorant of me. Because of this, I have changed sides, and I am now a very strong supporter of reducing gun controls and restrictions.

 

Great. Notwithstanding the Second Amendment's language that the right "shall not be infringed" you agree there should be regulations and restrictions as to what kind of weapons can be possessed and who can possession them. I do to. The only issue between us, then, if how extensive those restrictions and regulation should be.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for sharing your opinion. We may differ as to the degree, but we agree there should regulations and restrictions on guns.

 

What do you think about not allowing people with "a history of mental illness" to not have guns? I was originally in strong favor of this provision, but what worries me about it is that the government is now taking charge of healthcare, and "mental illness" is a very ambiguous term. Who's to say that religious fanatics are "mentally sane" or that political protesters don't have a "mental illness"? These ambiguous terms of laws are what scare me about government butting into our lives. As we have seen with Bush, governments can easily redefine words to mean other things (like what a "financial institution" is for the government to search unwarranted). This is what they are doing with assault weapons right now, and this is what they could potentially do with somebody classified as having a "mental illness".

 

I am not against gun control which the end result is a total reduction in crime. This is always a delicate balance because we as a society have to weigh the costs and benefits of every law that gets debated and passed/rejected. Outlawing one type of gun will do nothing except have a substitute product to fill the previous void where an item used to be. It is simple economics.

There are some people that put their ability to own and operate firearms in ways they see fit worthy of killing and dying for. I do not blame them. If gun rights are stripped of an entire population under the guise of legality, we get out of control governments that rule over their populations in one way or another. The more totalitarian governments go further than less totalitarian governments, but the outcome is usually the same given a long enough time line. We are at a cross roads for our country right now because the progressive agenda has ben pretty clear for the last decade or three: get rid of guns by including more and more guns into a prohibitive area of ownership. It started with full auto guns in 1986, then certain shotguns without a "sporting purpose", then "assault weapons" (which had a sunset clause), then again with the assault weapons. Some fringe elements of the progressive agenda want to get rid of handguns, which is the best every day self defense tool in the world in my opinion, and then shotguns, then bows and arrows (because they can kill silently), cross bows, assault knives, steak knives with points, and then pointy sticks.

There is no end to the anti-weapon agenda unless it is people under the employee of those in charge. I wouldn't loose too much sleep if I knew that AR-15's were out lawed and I knew that that was it for the rest of eternity because there are other choices. I just know that if a line is not drawn in the sand somewhere, the goal post will be moved yet again and another super scary object will be vilified and banned because of the court of public opinion, not because of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

As an extension of my above post, I wrote a tongue and cheek post about the future of knives. I hope you get that I am joking, but it is a possible future and has already happened in the United Kingdom.

 

http://radioviceonline.com/departme...rt-rifle-ar-15-suitable-for-personal-defense/

 

No kidding.

Iriemon

 

Iriemon said ;That's fine. But I don't think a 13 year old ought to be able to walk into Walmart and pick up a fully automatic weapon and a dozen grenades off the shelf just because some of them might be responsible. Do you?

reva said; In the US Army a 13 year old can not join the military.

I was saying your post were comparing apples to oranges.

That said no one has been able to rebut my answer to the OT, why we need yada yada yada….. So I suppose I will claim victory.

In addition the type firearms referenced in the OT are ignorantly titled assault weapons. They are nothing of the sort

budda budda byeeee~

reva

 

No one has the right to tell me what kind of weapon or its capability can be used to protect my family and home.

 

Assault rifles are for one purpose only. This is to protect personal property and to enforce the 2nd amendment right. The 2nd amendment is designed to protect us from our government becoming tyrannical, taking over control of our lives and erasing the bill of rights plain and simple. Game, set and match. There is no situation, condition or reason that exists suitable to supersede this right. There are 315,567,514 people living in this country as per the census bureau. In the United States in 2010, the rate of firearm deaths was 10 people per 100,000, while for traffic accidents it was 12 per 100,000. Firearm-related deaths totaled 31,672 in 2010. Why aren't we fighting to eliminate automobiles? This seems to be more serious of a situation with a higher death rate than guns. As unfeeling and cold as this may sound, less than .001% of the population, give or take, dies from gun related violence per year. I have a better chance of being hit by lightening in an airplane seconds after winning power ball. I fail to see why we would waste so much effort, time and resources addressing this issue only to make us feel better about ourselves by reacting to a horribly tragic situation. In a related subject, putting in place stricter background checks is a complete political fairy tail. The current background check takes criminal history into consideration already. There is no national data base that tracks mental illness I am aware of. Patient, doctor privilege will never allow that from becoming a reality. Forgive me again for being insensitive enough to say hallelujah and amen to that. In a day and age where I can't apply for a job without a credit check, I don't need some pencil pushing cubicle dweller being able to hit a button and see that I may have had a mental challenge in my past. Not to mention this is a health issue the last time I checked.