Assault Weapons - Ban or make them Legal?

Ok with the recent shootings in Denver there have been talk about whether Assault weapons should be banned. Now normally Conservatives want to uphold the 2nd amendment and Liberals want to ban assault weapons.
Let me first say that I am a proud gun owner- although I don't own any assault weapons and that's by choice- but the bigger question is will I ever really need to own one?
My approach would be why would any citizen need to own an automatic assault rifle, AR-15', UZI's, Ak-47's, M-16 etc???? Those weapons have one purpose mass killings during a military battle.
Now one of my conservative friends said well if you ban assault weapons then we should ban Ferrari's Porsche's, Lambo's and any other car that goes well over 200mph because why would you need to go that fast???? However, I think his comparison is not quite the same because cars that are used in NASCAR are not street legal for various reasons.

Now I have heard some conservatives say the 2nd amendment was set in place in order to make sure that the govt doesn't fully take over- however, our forefathers had no knowledge of how powerful weapons would become so you really can't use that logic. Also, hypothetically speaking if the military were to someday "take over" would go would owning Assault weapons do you- last time I checked the army has tanks.
Now if we legalize assault weapons than where do we stop? Can I than purchase a RPG or a Bazooka? I think there should be limitations of what type of firepower a citizen can own.

Your thoughts?

as a gunowner (more than a few) my self, I dont own an assault weapon either, and certainly have no need for one. I cross the need for / 2nd amendment line and ask myself the same questions you presented. At the end of the day, a ban on assault weapons wont necessarily eliminate the problem ... people who want an AR will own an AR, just like people who do drugs can get drugs ... someone somewhere will fill the void and make assault weapons avaiable, regardless of legality. That in itself forces me to lean to supporting the 2nd, and everything it stands for.

RPG's and Bazookas arent firearms IMO, and are much harder to get. Apply the above will have/can get logic and rest assured if Scarface wants an RPG, Scarface will have an RPG.

Romney put a ban on assault rifles long ago. I'd be curious the see the before and after stats and the direct effect said ban had ..

Im pro 2nd amendment

even though I'd rather shoot my Bowtech than burn gunpowder ...

Who gets to decide what guns the people "need"? If you want to change the Constitution, do it. Prepare and pass an amendment. Until then, let's follow the law. I'm not sure I want you to decide what guns I "need".

BTW, I don't own a gun, and never have.

RPG's and Bazookas arent firearms IMO, and are much harder to get. Apply the above will have/can get logic and rest assured if Scarface wants an RPG, Scarface will have an RPG. Originally Posted by CJ7

Still protected under the 2nd amendment according to Scaila.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...her/?mobile=nc

I'm one of the people that thinks the Second Amendment is about protecting people form the government. I don't own guns, never have. The Founding Fathers would never have dreamed up the advanced weapons and weaponry systems that we have now. Personally, I think that if the weapon is classified as a firearm, in the generic not what some agency committee deems a firearm, then it should be legal to buy, sell and own.

Still protected under the 2nd amendment according to Scaila.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...her/?mobile=nc Originally Posted by KCJoe

I wonder if my carry permit applys to my compound bow ... what say ye Justice Scaila?

lol

The devil is in the details. Would you care to accurately define what an assault weapon is? No, liberal mind fuck trips like Clinton did or what they did in Maryland. Give a real good, accurate definition so we all know what you are talking about. What is my Garand? What is my PMR30?


In your original screed you mention fully automatic assault rifles....there is no record of any, legalled owned, fully automatic assault rifle ever being used in a a crime. Comments.

Assault weapons are already banned I thought.

Automatic AR-16 requires an expensive license to possess. If you are talking about SEMI-automatic weapons then say that. An assault weapon means many things to many people. In my mind if it doesn't require a trailer hitch then it's legal.

My opinion is that a citizen should be allowed to keep and bear any arm that their own government would use against them.
Is that plain enough for you?

My opinion is that a citizen should be allowed to keep and bear any arm that their own government would use against them.
Is that plain enough for you? Originally Posted by The2Dogs

I've always wanted an F-16 loaded with HSM's ... no hitch required either

I do not own any assault weapons. I do own a civilian model of the M-16 that is a semi-automatic carbine. I own many semi-automatic pistols.
If I wanted to pay for a very expensive license, I could own fully automatic weapons which I believe is an infringement on my 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The "assault" lable is what peop0le use to identify most semi-automatic firearms so they can lump them all in the same group. this could include non semi-automatic shotguns such a pump shotguns that have folding stocks or pistol grips or any gun that is dark in color.

I can document mass killings with automobiles where a driver killed multiple people with one automobile by driving into a crowd of people. The people were not able to defend themselves against the onslaught of the automobile. Where is the outcry and demand for banning theautomobile.

The fact is that if a person wants to kill a large number of people they do not need a firearm to do it.

T2Nutlickers, WHY THE FUCK do you do this to yourself?

I do not own any assault weapons. I do own a civilian model of the M-16 that is a semi-automatic carbine. I own many semi-automatic pistols. Good for you and your three inch dick. Betcha got mega-pack clips for them, too. Other than your paranoia and for male enhancement, what is the purpose for all of that firepower? C'mon, level with us, you bought the fully automatic conversion kits for all of them, didn'tcha?
If I wanted to pay for a very expensive license, I could own fully automatic weapons which I believe is an infringement on my 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. Aren't you special. What happened to "what price freedom?" You're telling us that it costs more than you want to pay to be fully automatic. Seems to me like you need to work on enhancing your paranoia in order to work past this TPeater character flaw. Be careful about what you say, some "True Believer" may pull your TP ticket because you're not "patriotic" enough.
The "assault" lable is what peop0le use to identify most semi-automatic firearms so they can lump them all in the same group. this could include non semi-automatic shotguns such a pump shotguns that have folding stocks or pistol grips or any gun that is dark in color. "Most people" being gun manufacturers and retailers, eh? Has nothing to do with the intended use of the weapon? Is it legal to hunt deer or other game with an M-16, Uzi, or "dark guns?" (wtf?)

I can document mass killings with automobiles where a driver killed multiple people with one automobile by driving into a crowd of people. The people were not able to defend themselves against the onslaught of the automobile. Where is the outcry and demand for banning theautomobile. Get back to us when the number of those incidents and body count from THOSE PARTICULAR CRIMES faintly approaches the volume of non-domestic driven gun deaths. I'm sure somebody, somewhere, sometime was murdered by a water balloon, too. LOL, well, maybe not. Chair leg, anyone?

The fact is that if a person wants to kill a large number of people they do not need a firearm to do it. Just ask Timothy McVeigh. I guess he shoulda received a discount on his penalty for creativity. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Believe it or not, I think that anyone should be able to own as much firepower (that can be handled by that person without any assistance) as their little ol' heart desires. I just also think that they should have to go through a significant amount of training at their expense for EACH different type of weapon they want to buy. If one can PROVE that they can manhandle a .50-cal machine gun and hit something within a 3-ft diameter at 50-ft with no rounds outside of the circle, more power to them. But, "cop killer," hot, or anti-personnel ammunition would be where I draw the line. And, yes, all of them should be registered at the local, state and federal level. If the owner changes addresses, the owner would forfeit all weapons if the registration wasn't updated. Of course, the bullshit "Stand Your Ground" laws would have to go. Everyone had the right to defend their property before these vigilante laws were written by the NRA and passed by their bought-and-paid-for or otherwise intimidated lackeys.

Now, the argument against strict registration is, " 'THEY' know where I am and can come and get my stuff." This is a feel good, unsound premise. In order for any and all law enforcement agencies at any level to embark on a coordinated program of weapon removal from the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of gun owners, there would have to be one hell of a conspiracy. In order for that circumstance to present itself, there would be many things that would have to happen. Hmmm, think someone might notice? No, I'm not talking about COsFb, whirly, and you other TPunk wack-jobs. I'm talking about rational people. You guys need to de-Hollywood your paranoia.

And, of course, there's the old standby, "Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People." Yep, just like they might drive into a crowd. Fact is, nut cases will go nuts and violent criminals will get their grubby little paws on whatever they can. Is this little bromide great rationale for it to be easy for them to do so? They just don't need to have access to firepower greater than law enforcement and, yes, wait and jump through more hoops - drive the crazies crazy...before they get ahold of serious weaponry.

Oh yeah, one more thing - you can look all you want, test all you want, masturbate with them all you want, but you ain't buying sheeeyut at a gun show. They just need to be like the thousands of other legitimate trade shows, a place to find out about product and locate reputable dealers. Hell, go ahead and place an order, you just can't take delivery there.

I am also pro 2d Amendment, and it has nothing to do with duck hunting.

I am also for making it a Capitol Crime if a person commits a crime with a Firearm. That means if you go into a store and rob it, armed with a firearm, you will be subject to the death penalty. If you break into someone's house, and are armed, you are subject to the death penalty. If you car jack someone, and are armed, you are subject to the death penalty.

It would make no difference whether you shot someone, or not. If you commit a crime with a firearm, that means you had the intent of causing death to an innocent person.

The NRA backs this. Why doesn't the anti 2d Amendment crowd?

There has never been a legitimate reason to register fire arms. Knowing that I have a gun serves no purpose other than make it easy to confiscate that gun. Every country that forbids fire arms has started out with the same line. "We just want to know where they are". The next step is we will store your guns so they will be safe, you just come and get it when you want to go to the range. The final step is we want them out of the hands of the criminals, so we will destroy them. Most of my guns have been purchased on the private market and there is no record of where it is. Do you think the criminals will turn there guns in? You can always put a sign in your front yard that you don't believe in fire arms. For my self I posted a sign that says "This house protected by Smith and Wesson".