Assault Weapons Ban

Weapons should be restricted they are far to easy for people to get a hold of in general. No cititzen needs a assault weapon. If the NRA had their way they would put a rocket launcher in everyones hands they are nothing more than a mouthpiece of the gun makers. I hunt and I own a rifle and shotgun so i am not against guns, just against republicans with guns.
should model our system like Great Brittian. They have guns for hunting and they know who has the guns. No one packs heat not even the cops. The falacy of the second ammendment has americans believing they have a rite to own any kind of weapon and as many as they want. Look around you see other countries with the violence we have? The fact is the malitia is the army national guard and any of these folks that think they should overthrow the country are not the kind of people I want in charge to begin with. So the whole don't touch my guns argument is a bunch of bunk. Its isn't about preserving freedom if that was the case we would have already had an uprising. So now every once and awhile we get to hear on the news how some kids got ahold of gun and killed another kid or gangs shooting each other up and taking out bistanders. Conservatives are nothing but hypocrites they talk this impassioned talk about guns and anti abortion and yet they support the death penalty and giving everyone including mentally incompetent people guns and so our city streets are a battle ground. They say that is the cost of freedom, no one is really free go ahead and hold yourself up in your house and see how long it takes for the ATF to take your arse out. I don't want people who think like this with guns they are a danger to themselves as well as society. Issues everyone a double barrell twelve gage and a bolt action rifle. Flock semi auto guns, assault weapons, handguns. People don't need them, there is no justification, and I am tired as a member of this society of having blood on my hands just so these crazy gun nuts, who are nothing more than cowards anyway, can claim its a second ammendment right. It doesn't say anything about what kind of guns or type anywhere in the constitution either, would think people would want to get control of the gun problem out of common sense. The reality is gun nuts are afraid and/or paranoid of everything and everyone who could potentially bend them over a trash can and take away their man virginity. They are Pussises hiding behind a gun.

Go look at some statistics, there are a lot more people dying from assault weapons than people with assault weapons being taken out by people with hand guns. This is a ludicrous argument. Let everyone carry a concealed weapon instead of banning assault weapons. Real brilliant, if there werent assault weapons in the hands of civilians to begin with there wouldn't be these mass killings happening period. How many people can you kill with a common weapon max would be five wihout reloading. Most people would think twice about going into a public establishment with a 5 round gun and unloading because they are cowards and without their assault weapon they stand a pretty good chance of someone taking them out by even tackling them with only 5 rounds. THERE IS ZERO REASON FOR ASSAULT WEAPONS FOR CIVILIANS!!! Any argument for assault weapons is usually made by a skin head or other nut that thinks that think there is going to be some kind of uprising, exactly the kind of people that you don't want with a gun.

These are the kind of people I have been refering to. Nuts and crazies who think the fed goverment is going to take your guns away and there is going to be a race war yadda yadda yadda. What would the federal goverment do to you if it took your guns away that it hasnt already done with the patriot act? If you were going to act that was the time. You would rather flap the same old bs and rherotic out there to justify your gun hunger. Funny thing is most of you all cant admit the real fact is you like guns they are fun like a big boy toy. Instead of talking all your talk I am willing to be you have never served one day in the military? I have been in 18.5 years and have been around the world from both coasts. I definitely would be on the other side fighting with whoever is the opposing team in any war involving these kind of people. Probably go out on the weekends to private militia shooting parties and praise hitler and talk about all the colored people.
IntangibleAsset IntangibleAsset
46-50, M
5 Responses Dec 13, 2012

i we outlaw assault weapons then the only people who have assault weapons will be outlaws.

I have to take a different role here. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat and enjoy points from both the Conservative side and the Liberal side. I am, however, an American and utilizing the 1st Amendment felt obligated to express my opinion.

My opinion is based upon experience in the world during my life time. First, I have had to use weapons three times for protection. I used a revolver at a highway rest stop when confronted with a gun. I was able to diffuse the situation through talk as most responsible gun owners would. The other time was when I interrupted an attempted rape near where I work. The lady victim was quite happy that I happened by. The third time was in a camp ground where I shot and killed the intruder. It was an injured bear that was more interested in our neighboring campers than rustling for food. I used a semi-auto rifle that time. I felt bad killing the bear but it was going for the camper's 4 year old daughter.

I,too, was in the military. I was a sniper. My sniper rifle doesn't count as an Assault weapon although my back-up M-16 does. The .45 I carried was a semi-auto but probably doesn't count either. I served so you could freely express your opinion but found out that the true battle was actually here at home. I found that the true opponents to the Constitution were right here. Sorry you had to be so abusive to others to get your point across. Lot's of fearful innuendos and sarcasm directed at fellow Americans. Personally, I prefer open calm debate supported by facts. It provides for logical decisions by both sides.

Fear is a big factor now days. Please understand that I hate hearing kids get killed. The fact is, they do. When there is a place where firearms are prohibited, someone inclined to do harm is going to go there. That usually means a school, shopping mall or a restaurant. Now, assume your opinion becomes the norm. You would still be able to kill 10 kids, drop your clip and insert another 10 round clip several times before authorities show up to kill you. These shooters didn't use super fast almost automatic machine gun like firing. They aimed and fired. You could do this with a bolt action hunting rifle just as easily. Number wise, kids or adults, very few people fall victim to guns as a percentage of the population. Less than most countries that have total gun bans. As Americans, we can kill people with many other weapons with equal or greater casualties. The Boston Marathon, as horrible as it was, is the most recent example of wonton killing of children and other civilians without a gun.

In my case, I'm a trick shooter. I don't hunt. I don't compete. I don't kill people. I learned to shoot from my Mother who did carnival shooting and my Gramma who shot in Wild West shows. In other words, I shoot spinning discs, light matches, shoot aces or coins tossed in the air. Are you going to take my guns away because I sometimes have to use semi-automatic rifles to put on a show? I'd hate to see that day come because of abuse of the Constitution which should be interpreted through the meaning of the verbiage of it's time.

Sorry to be so long winded, but in my opinion, you're wrong. EP wants us to be friendly, so Thanks

For the record, the AR-10 and AR-15 aren't even assault rifles. They're semi-automatic rifles. An assault rifle is fully automatic. The M-16 and the AK47 are assault rifles. Being in the military, I would have expected you of all people would know that. The media and the liberal public don't like the AR-15 because it looks too much like an M-16, it looks tactical and militaristic. I have a Ruger 10-22 rifle. It's a semi-automatic rifle. If I put an aftermarket stock on it with a pistol grip and an accessory rail, does that make it an assault rifle? No. It's still a semi-automatic rifle. The actions of a VERY SMALL group of people should not result in the punishment of 99.9999% of everybody else. Look at how many thousands of people are killed each year by cars. I don't see people screaming to ban cars. Are mass killings tragic, yes. The thing that needs to be remembered though is at the end of the day, the gun did not load itself and it did not discharge itself. It takes a person with evil intent. If somebody wants to kill a bunch of people, there's plenty of other options. They could make a bomb or drive their car through a crowded mall.

Boston Marathon is a great example of someone who causes harm without a firearm of any kind and actually injures more people than with a semi-auto. Excellent comment via an old vet who used real Assault weapons. Thanks for setting the definition correct!

Thank you for serving, by the way. I have the utmost respect for our Veterans. If we want to argue that there's a difference between "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" (which I believe is splitting hairs) then an "assault weapon is, by it's own name, something used to assault somebody. A baseball bat or a hammer fits that bill just as well as an AR-15, maybe even better in some ways. You usually don't expect trouble from somebody carrying a baseball bat, but you can kill somebody just as easily with it. One good blow to the head would do it.

Thank you. A Rifle can be a weapon and a weapon can be a rifle. Replace Rifle with Baseball Bat and the sentence reads the same. I agree with you that splitting hairs achieves little. Personally, I just wish we'd all get along, stop the accusing diatribe and get real! Thanks again!

I appreciate your service RRguy. Chris92404 is spot on differentiating Assault Rifles from Assault Weapons. Assault weapon is a term invented by gun grabbers back in the 1980s with the intent to confuse the public into believing that semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 is a machine gun. The anti-gun lobbyists have been somewhat successful too...lots of people don't actually know the difference.

Remember this...assault weapons such as the AR-15 have accounted for 385 murders since the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2003 - those are Dianne Feinstein's statistics. That means assault weapons are responsible for about 49 murders on average, annually. In 2011 alone, there were approx. 6800 gun murders (FBI stats). That means assault weapons account for about 0.6% of all gun murders annually. How does this compare? More people are killed by knives every year than are killed by assault weapons. More people are killed by blunt objects (bats, hammers, etc.) every year than are killed by assault weapons. More people are strangled to death every year than are killed by assault weapons. More people are suffocated every year than are killed by assault weapons. More people are killed in fires set by arsonists every year than are killed by assault weapons.

Another thing I find odd...
We are not supposed to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few extremists. However, a few lunatics with a gun is enough for the government to judge all Americans who own a gun. Go figure!

1 More Response

From the World Health Organization: The latest Murder Statistics for the world:

Based on murders per 100,000 citizens
Honduras 91.6
El Salvador 69.2
Cote d'lvoire 56.9
Jamaica 52.2
Venezuela 45.1
Belize 41.4
US Virgin Islands 39.2
Guatemala 38.5
Saint Kits and Nevis 38.2
Zambia 38.0
Uganda 36.3
Malawi 36.0
Lesotho 35.2
Trinidad and Tobago 35.2
Colombia 33.4
South Africa 31.8
Congo 30.8
Central African Republic 29.3
Bahamas 27.4
Puerto Rico 26.2
Saint Lucia 25.2
Dominican Republic 25.0
Tanzania 24.5
Sudan 24.2
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9
Ethiopia 22.5
Guinea 22.5
Dominica 22.1
Burundi 21.7
Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7
Panama 21.6
Brazil 21.0
Equatorial Guinea 20.7
Guinea-Bissau 20.2
Kenya 20.1
Kyrgyzstan 20.1
Cameroon 19.7
Montserrat 19.7
Greenland 19.2
Angola 19.0
Guyana 18.6
Burkina Faso 18.0
Eritrea 17.8
Namibia 17.2
Rwanda 17.1
Mexico 16.9
Chad 15.8
Ghana 15.7
Ecuador 15.2
North Korea 15.2
Benin 15.1
Sierra Leone 14.9
Mauritania 14.7
Botswana 14.5
Zimbabwe 14.3
Gabon 13.8
Nicaragua 13.6
French Guiana 13.3
Papua New Guinea 13.0
Swaziland 12.9
Bermuda 12.3
Comoros 12.2
Nigeria 12.2
Cape Verde 11.6
Grenada 11.5
Paraguay 11.5
Barbados 11.3
Togo 10.9
Gambia 10.8
Peru 10.8
Myanmar 10.2
Russia 10.2
Liberia 10.1
Costa Rica 10.0
Nauru 9.8
Bolivia 8.9
Mozambique 8.8
Kazakhstan 8.8
Senegal 8.7
Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7
Mongolia 8.7
British Virgin Islands 8.6
Cayman Islands 8.4
Seychelles 8.3
Madagascar 8.1
Indonesia 8.1
Mali 8.0
Pakistan 7.8
Moldova 7.5
Kiribati 7.3
Guadeloupe 7.0
Haiti 6.9
Timor-Leste 6.9
Anguilla 6.8
Antigua and Barbuda 6.8
Lithuania 6.6
Uruguay 5.9
Philippines 5.4
Ukraine 5.2
Estonia 5.2
Cuba 5.0
Belarus 4.9
Thailand 4.8
Suriname 4.6
Laos 4.6
Georgia 4.3
Martinique 4.2

And...drumroll please

The United States 4.2

What do ALL the countries above have in common? They have 100% gun bans.

Banning guns, assault weapons, etc. will not solve the problem, because they are not the root cause of the issue.

First off only a republican would use such a red herring to try to debate my point but since you brought up these stats you forgot some important countries who have lower homicide rates that the US, Palestine, Isreal, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, libya, Egypt, Turkey I could go on but my point here with your stats is that there are wars going on in and around most of these countries and yet there stats are lower than our country. What does that say, it says that the US has a higher rate of homicide per 100k people that all the countries of the mid east with the exception of Pakistan. So put that into perspective, the countries with the lowest rates are all of europe with the exception of the eastern europe, the far eastern countries, Canada. These countries all have strict gun control laws and have the lower numbers. The countries with the high numbers The majority of South America, Central America, Most of Africa. We all know why south and central america have issues drugs, Africa is constantly being run by war lords with zero respect for human life and where the majority of the diamonds come from we so love here in the US, Eastern Europe is old Russian countries and Russia which is in turmoil and becoming lawless and pretty much mob rule and the russian mob is running the majority of the human trafficking, drugs and any other illegal active you can think of. So isn't it funny how people who are uneducated and ignorant have to skew the statistics to try to make a point and like Rush Flimball leave out the rest of the stats that make there argument null and void.
My whole point of my story had nothing to do with international murder rates it has to do with MASS MURDERS and if you go look up those statistics you will find that the US has everyone beat hands down on Mass Murders and Mass Murders per capita. Lets compare the US to Europe since europe has 3 times the population of the US we have to miltiply the stats by 3 to compare the data per capita. In the 10 year period between 2002-2012 The Us had around 35 mass murders all of europe had 11 so to put that in perspective per capita mulitiply 35 x 3 and you get 105 compared to Europe's 11. There are some real statistics for you to point out what it looks like when you compare countries with strict gun control laws with countries with zero like the US. Gun control works, the proof is in the stats. There is zero argument you can make to justify your postion against gun control and you can skew the stats all you want but you just plain *** wrong.

Maybe you could have used a larger font to get your angry point across. That's what I love about you progressives...always so angry with everything. And if someone disagrees with you, then they simply must be stupid. Check your statistics a little more carefully and you'll see that mass murder in the US is currently on the decline. If my point about the murder rate in other countries is so irrelevant, why go off on such a ridiculous diabtribe about what's happening in other countires? Of course, you unwittingly help me make my point (as do all you low information liberals) murder is about culture and not about the tool. Yet, what do the gun control nuts want to do? Avoid root cause. It's just like some woman mentioned to me on the same issue...she agreed it is about evil people, and those with mental health issues...but that's simply too difficult a challenge to tackle...so instead, why not do the easy thing and take the guns away? Afterall, we know how well gun control laws work in America. Let's see, citiies with the most rigorous gun control laws such as Chicago and Wash DC also happen to have the highest murder rates.

You say "there is zero argument you can make to justify your position against gun control..." Two points...first, I have made my argument. You simply don't like it. Second, you are the one that wants to change the existing laws, so the burden of proof belongs to you. Go ahead and try to prove that an assault weapons ban (like we had between 1994 and 2004) will reduce mass murder. Remember, Columbine occurred during that period. Another question for you...how many rounds did Timothy McVay's magazine hold when he blew up the building in Oklahoma City?

Assault weapons ban like we had was a joke, it was window dressing and didn't address the nuts and bolts of what an assault weapon is, look at brittians works for them.
T McVey's actions are comparing apples and oranges to mass shootings. How many Americans have done anything like T McVey has in the history of the US?
Facts are facts semi auto guns make killing easy and are far to easy for anyone to get and if they were eliminated the numbers of killings would go down. Eliminate all killings no but reduce the numbers drastically yes.
I have come to the conclusion about 2 things after looking at the direction the US is going. One people should have to pass a basic psychological assessment like all police are given prior to employment to be able to get any kind of firearm. Two conservatives should be sterilized. People that don't have the ability to think for themselves and use common sense should not be allowed to spread their damaged seeds.

You are too funny. Conservatives should be sterilized? LOL! Classic response. Disagree with a liberal, and watch the hate mongering fly!

Of course, you've singled out conservatives. News flash...plenty of liberals are pro gun as well. Lots of liberals own guns. Many of which are semi-automatic, with high capacity magazines (of more than 10 rounds). A few even have those scary looking "assault weapons" you so eagerly want to ban. I guess you think those liberals are stupid too. Keep screaming louder because you are such a pitiful minority.

As for the 2nd Amendment and all your jibber jabber about it being non-sense, I strongly urge you to read what the Federalists and Anti-Federalists wrote about the 2nd Amendment. Then read the two landmark Supreme Court rulings. District of Columbia v. Heller 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago 2010. Sadly, there aren't any pictures in there for you, so it may be difficult. Suffice it to say, the Supreme Court disagrees with your opinion as to the meaning behind the 2nd Amendment. Clue: the court has ruled that the people have the right to bear arms as a means of self defense, and as a means to protect themselves from the tyranny of government (both foreign and domestic).

To be honest with you, I didn't read your initial piece very carefully when I first replied. I have to say, now that I have looked at it more closely, I am truly amazed. There are so many flaws in your logic and critical reasoning, along with your arrogance to even begin to discuss this in a civilized manner.

I'm sure you'll continue to think I'm a conservative idiot, and instead of actually defending your points with concrete information, you'll choose to ignore the facts, and take the typical liberal approach of resorting to name calling.

I like it when someone actually backs up their opinion with facts! Thank you!

Let's ask the REAL experts of gun control: Hitler, Stalin, Moussoulini. They all established gun control in their countries before becoming a totalitarian state. Reason: when you disarm the citizens, you remove the ability to defend against an oppressive government. Unarmed citizens are not citizens, they're subjects. There's nothing that acts as a check against those in power from becoming dictators and tyrants. That's why the 2nd Ammendment is so important: it acts as a check against our governing body becoming oppressive and self serving. That's why the government dosen't like civilians with guns: they can't exercise the absolute authority that they want to have

Exactly right. And their so called "assault weapons" are the low hanging fruit. These guns account for less than 2% of all gun crime and 0.6% of gun murders annually. If the gov't can ban assault weapons, the door is open for any gun involved in more crime statistically - which means the door is open for them to ban hand guns, shotguns, and even regular rifles. All those weapons are responsible for more crime and murder. If assault weapons are too dangerous for the public to own, certainly the other weapons are as well. It's just a thin disguise Progressives have and their lemmings that follow them to confiscate all guns.

Sorry for butting in. I agree with you wholeheartedly as you can see by comment. My main concern now is why he is on this site? The group is entitled "I Love Guns." I thought it was a group where we could all get along about a topic we all like. As long as he insists on trying to disrupt what we enjoy by putting us and others who don't agree with him down rather than use non-emotional debate backed by evidence I can only agree that he must be acting out his own fear, non-global view and really needs a Xanax. Thanks for your support.

Hi RRguy - I realize you are in agreement. Sorry if that didn't come across. And I want to thank for your military service and helping to protect our rights. IntangibleAssWipe is just a classic, loudmouth progressive who is here to simply bash anyone that disagrees with his point of view. Instead of providing facts and data, he rants and resorts to name calling when someone has a different line of thinking. It's always emotionally based, and never logically based. Look at the quotes from any of the gun grabbers. This is one of my favs:

Andrew Cuomo loudly exclaims: "No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer!"

I mean...WTF? What does deer hunting have to do with whether or not someone should own high capacity magazines? Answer: it has NOTHING to do with it. It's just emotional rhetoric that gets the...how shall I put this...mentally impinged gun grabbers fired up.

I have done a lot of research on this subject, and I have yet to hear one single strong argument from gun grabbers to ban any type of assault weapon. Not one. Any point they make, any point...can easily be challenged with real facts and data.

6 More Responses

So, I hear what you're saying is that the only people who should be allowed to have firearms built for killing people (assault rifles, and the like) are the ones to whom we have given that duty -- the military. And I would not disagree with you if -- speaking from the same number of years of service -- if I had greater faith in some of them paying attention to that oath we swore.

Agreeing with you, the Second Amendment misinterpretations are a waste of time to argue about. The bottom line is, who should we allow to be custodians of weapons whose only purpose is the use of deadly force and denying pursuit of happiness, and what rules should they live by if they want that stewardship?

Like I said and I have said about so many things about our country. We need to quit being so arrogant and start looking at what other countries are doing like germany's educational system for example and in this case what great brittian is doing with guns and model our system like it. This was the wild west but frankly there is no reason a civilized society needs these assault weapons. Like I said a double barrel or hell even a pump shot gun max 5 rounds and a bolt action rifle max 5 rounds. I think my 30-06 only holds 4 if I remember right. I know you get the point here. The most important point of all is that if there was ever a time to be up in arms it was when the patriot act was signed and i didn't see anyone raising hell then. So it is a moot point to argue about concern over the fed government taking guns if we would let the patriot act happen. Im sure if it was Obama trying to get the patriot act excepted there would have been riots and guns in the streets but old W and his monkey face got away with it just because he is a republican and for no other reason, well and the rhetoric and BS about Iraq he perpetrated on the people to sell his ill gotten war.