Assault Rifles should be banned

[VUPDblue]

Also, this thread has the potential to turn into some very good debating, but it also has the potential to go very wrong. I have already sent out one warning. Do not devolve this into insults and personal attacks. You have been warned.

 

[techres]

I'll bite bigger. Zach, are you in Bloomington? If so, wanna go to the range and shoot a few rifles that some want banned? I have several and can drive you up to a range in Martinsville.

If so, let me know, and please review this link:

Invitation to Shoot

I think an hour or so with with an AR, and AK and an LTR would put you in a position to understand the technical issues of the supposed "assault weapons" and bans related to them. We can also go over some of the history of the bans, etc. to your heart's content.

(...and before NateIU10 can post, YES I will take you to the range some day and NO you do not have to pretend to be a newbie to go...)

[edited to remove already posted info - my fault for such a slow posting process]

 

[hoosiertriangle]

This is by the far the best response to date on the topic! Many opinions are a poor substitute for one person's experience. Zach, I strongly encourage you to take this offer and see for yourself. Also, the best responses from those curious or worried about guns was to take them shooting. Almost all have been enthusiastically receptive to guns afterward.

I'll bite bigger. Zach, are you in Bloomington? If so, wanna go to the range and shoot a few rifles that some want banned? I have several and can drive you up to a range in Martinsville.

If so, let me know, and please review this link:

Invitation to Shoot

I think an hour or so with with an AR, and AK and an LTR would put you in a position to understand the technical issues of the supposed "assault weapons" and bans related to them. We can also go over some of the history of the bans, etc. to your heart's content.

(...and before NateIU10 can post, YES I will take you to the range some day and NO you do not have to pretend to be a newbie to go...)

[edited to remove already posted info - my fault for such a slow posting process]

 

[Hoosier8]

In my opinion when the constitution was writen there were not any "assault rifles" or 9mm or Glocks etc. etc....

Zach, when the constitution was written, there was also no radio or television; thereby, using your logic, the first amendment would not apply to them. Right?

By the second amendment, no weapon should be denied to lawful citizens, none! Just as the first amendment pertains to freedom of speech in general and not any type of spoken word or language, the second pertains to firearm ownership, not the type or appearance of firearm.

Also, all current hunting rifles started out as military rifles, the lever action repeater, the bolt action rifle, the M1 semi-automatic, now the AR15 derivative of the military M16. People decried the use of all previous military arms as inappropriate for hunting at one time or another.

Quit buying into the fear!

 

[bigcraig]

Oh boy, Zach your are not by chance the young man I spoke with last evening at BJ's in Greenwood, are you?

Craig

 

[Hoosier8]

it was just a man and his rifle which he used to put food on the table, for protection, and possibly for sport. So therefore yeah, we should have a right to bear arms.

Oh yeah, I think you missed one. They were also used to defend the country from tyranny and are a guarantee of protection from future tyranny. It was understood at that time that the citizenry was the first and last line of defense of the country, something many people have been lulled into believing as not needed since we have a military. Let me remind you that it is still your responsibility to be your first line of defense, unless you think the police will be there to protect you, instead of filling out the paperwork while you are lying on the floor deceased. You are also still the first and last line of defense for the country. If you don't think it will ever be needed, well then, don't cry if you are not prepared. This is a country, of the people, by the people, and for the people, and we "the people" are the protectors of that guarantee.

 

[flagtag]

The Second Amendment doesn't regulate, limit, or determine the type, caliber, design, color, or style of any gun, nor does it list any "conditions" for ammo.

Our "Founding Fathers" recognized that firearms were evolving even then, so didn't put limits on them or the ammo used in them.

The problem is that those who 'govern' today may "Swear (affirm) their Oath of Office", but few actually honor that oath. If WE THE PEOPLE were to hold them to that OATH, many would not be in office today - they might even be impeached or charged with treason. But we all know that wouldn't happen.

ALL firearms are the same under the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America! (the REAL one) LEGAL!

The Second Amendment was put in place to let the government know that they did (do) not have the authority to violate those rights. (All of them!)

 

[Prometheus]

To me an assault rifle (whether automatic or not) is a military grade rifle with superb accuracy and possibly fire rate. Am I far off?

I have no idea what is meant by "superb accuracy" but bolt action rifles are much more accurate than semiautomatic rifles.

What do you need one of these for in a home?...

Because leaving them to lay around in the yard would cause them to rust or possibly get stolen

or I should ask what do I need these for in the area I live in?

During the LA Riots many home owners and shop owners used rifles banned under the 1994 assault weapons ban to defend themselves from armed looters and mobs... again during Katrina the same situation played out, police were either unable or unwilling to protect the citizens and they had to defend themselves. Maybe YOU don't live in an area like that, but I live smack between chicago and gary. Tens of millions of other Americans live in similar situations.

Again our founding fathers did not have the option of 400 types of weapons... to be armed as the government was a far cry back then to what it is now.

Back then citizens were allowed to own cannons as well. That in and of itself should prove to you that the Second Amendment is about more than target shooting and hunting.

Lastly, I am not an Obama supporter. I am stuck between the two and want to hear more on current issues from CURRENT people not research papers writen 5 years ago. I post to a current thread to hear these views. I support our right to bear arms... and dont 100% disagree with legalizing use of assault rifles whenever/wherever. I guess I am more concerned with the reason for producing them for the public in the first place.

You sound like a typical republican or democrat. I've posted on this issue before here, mccain is no friend of gun owners. He will NOT repeal any firearms laws and will most likely sign legislation that would ban more firearms.

While mccain is not as anti gun as obama, your fears that mccain will somehow legalize more guns is absurd.

There is a reason why the Gun Owners of America has both mccain AND obama F- ratings. They both are a danger to gun owners.

[quoote]Call me uneducated, call me what you will. I am just looking for clarification from people with a passion and I dont need to read our laws and bylaws to do that.[/quote]

Zach keep this in mind:

I follow the current laws 100% and by the book. If you (collectively) make the guns I currently own illegal you will be placing me in a terrible situation. I have a RIGHT to own these weapons. I have a RIGHT no matter what stupid legislation is passed. The supreme court has ruled (for centuries) that "A law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void".

Think about. Right now I work in a hospital, part of my duties include being on a trauma team. I save lives, pay A LOT of taxes, commit no crimes (except speeding and right on red).

Why would you want to make me a criminal? What possible good could come from that?

Punish those who commit crimes like robbery, murder and rape. Don't punish me just because I choose to own guns that "look evil".

 

[bwframe]

Hopefully I won't need to say this more than once. Please keep responses on-topic and avoid personal attacks. This thread was inflammatory from the beginning, but I expect us to remain adults. It's still a valid topic, even if the O.P. isn't very diplomatic.

Thank you Scutter01. How we handle the antis defines us in today's political climate. We are better than them. Lets not forget that.

 

[singlestacksig]

Regardless of the shape and looks of a rifle, it is still fundamentally the same , whether it is an AR-16 or a Ruger #1.
You can only fire one shot at a time.
A truly automatic weapon can fire more than 1 round when the trigger is pulled.
The political term "assault weapon" is being applied to guns that LOOK like guns that can fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.

As people have posted, a law banning guns by looks has already been passed and allowed to sunset, because the people do not want it..

In the HELLER case the SCOTUS rules that the Constitution of the U.S.A did not create the right to keep and bear arms, but simply listed it as one that exists.
This right evolves from the English law that was put down to protect the general population from persecution by ruling classes.. ( Protestant Vs Catholic and such.)
It also existed because the general population of any nation is the 'ready reserve' of fighting forces.
It should be reasonable to allow the general population to posses weapons in the same class as the Government.
( at least as far as small arms.. WMD might be a little much..)

A lot of high profile crimes that do get carried out , and get media attention , using an "assault weapon" could have been just as deadly with a single shot rifle like a Ruger #1.
The DC Sniper used an AR-15 .. but fired only ONE shot each time.. the magazine capacity and shape of the rifle had no impact on his ability to kill people..

 

[VUPDblue]

The DC Sniper used an AR-15 .. but fired only ONE shot each time.. the magazine capacity and shape of the rifle had no impact on his ability to kill people..

+eleventybillion. This pretty much sums it up.

 

[Zach]

Ok Ok Ok... a lot of opinions and research (and the videos Thanks RonPaulSupporter) have been done.

I had no idea the similarities between assault rifles (scary guns) and typical (friendly guns).

Many of the posts were very beneficial.

I have deduced the following...

Gun control, whether banning or approving, means little to me and my family. I do respect the right to bear arms and protect ones own and their family. And I respect each of you for posting your opinions. To be honest, regardless of the laws, the guns will be available to the people who should NOT have the guns.

I think it would be safe to close this post as many of the comments are off subject and I have accomplished what I wanted to.

thanks to all who offered the literature and research options. (and thanks for the invitation to shoot)

I will definitely discuss this amongst the few of us who are considering this an issue prior to voting.

thanks,
Zach

 

[Paul]

Ok Ok Ok... a lot of opinions and research (and the videos Thanks RonPaulSupporter) have been done.

I had no idea the similarities between assault rifles (scary guns) and typical (friendly guns).

Many of the posts were very beneficial.

I have deduced the following...

Gun control, whether banning or approving, means little to me and my family. I do respect the right to bear arms and protect ones own and their family. And I respect each of you for posting your opinions. To be honest, regardless of the laws, the guns will be available to the people who should NOT have the guns.

I think it would be safe to close this post as many of the comments are off subject and I have accomplished what I wanted to.

thanks to all who offered the literature and research options. (and thanks for the invitation to shoot)

I will definitely discuss this amongst the few of us who are considering this an issue prior to voting.

thanks,
Zach

I would take him up on the offer.

 

[VUPDblue]

I would take him up on the offer.

Yeah, and FWIW, I'd volunteer myself to tag along and let you 'demo' a REAL assault rifle...

 

[ashylarry]

Yeah, and FWIW, I'd volunteer myself to tag along and let you 'demo' a REAL assault rifle...

And I would take Nick up on that Zach.

 

[rhino]

In my opinion when the constitution was writen there were not any "assault rifles" or 9mm or Glocks etc. etc.... it was just a man and his rifle which he used to put food on the table, for protection, and possibly for sport. So therefore yeah, we should have a right to bear arms. But times have changed and guns have advanced and I feel they (assault rifles) should be left in the hands of our troops not for us to use here on the home front.

That's a tired and unoriginal argument.

If one were to believe such faulty logic, then the First Amendment wouldn't apply to typewriters, radio, loudspeakers, telephones, television, interweb, photocopy machines, etc. etc. etc.

The concept of a "good gun" and a "bad gun" is a false dichotomy created in an attempt to "divide and conquer" gun owners who lack rudimentary critical thinking skills. Those who seek to eliminate liberties and freedom almost always view those who disagree with them with contempt and derision because those poor pathetic losers who believe in innate human rights just aren't that bright.

 

[indyjoe]

Gun control, whether banning or approving, means little to me and my family. I do respect the right to bear arms and protect ones own and their family. And I respect each of you for posting your opinions. To be honest, regardless of the laws, the guns will be available to the people who should NOT have the guns.

Gun Control might not affect you personally, yet. Gun control didn't affect many Jews and other desirable in Nazi Germany, until they could not defend themselves from the gas chambers. Or similar events in 1929 Soviet Russia or 1911 in Turkey or other fun places. Gun Control is people control, not crime control.

Australia - Sometimes using deadly force, the government collected 640,381 personal firearms. What did this change?

Homicides are up 3.2 percent, in a country where this WAS low. Assaults are up 8.6 percent. Armed robberies are up 44 percent. (You read that right, why not rob them, they can't defend themselves.) In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent.

Before this ban, what had been happening? A steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms. They certainly fixed that problem.

 

[quiggly]

Zach,

I don't think you ever really said WHY you agree with the AWB? All that I saw was that you agreed with it.

Can you please explain the reasoning behind why you agree with it.

If I missed it in all the posts just cc that.

 

[singlestacksig]

I think that a lot of people want to ban something that they think is the cause of a crime, or they think allows crime to be easier to carry out.
A lot of high profile crime do happen involving guns that have "military" looks, or have been modified to function like a "military" weapon..
But these people discount or even to not consider that other factors made it easier to carry out the crime than the avalbility of that perticular weapon..
In the long Island shooter case, He shot up a train car full of people in NEW YORK CITY, a place that already had gun laws restricting the common man from having a gun. And so the people on the train car where unable to stop him.. I don't think it would have made much diference if he had a 10 round mag or not.. he would have still killed the first few people and wounded others untill he was stopped..

In cases of School shootings like V. Tech, again he targeted a place that the average person was not allowed to have a weapon..

As to the question , should the average person be allow to have military grade equipment ? At least in Indiana our contstitution states that the military must follow civilian law and orders, But how are the civilians going to make sure that is enforced?

In the past few decades there have been several nations around the world that have a coup , the military has taked over the government.. almost all the these events have taken place in a country that bans civilians from possesing arms that are "military"..

Can you really have a free and fair election & government if you have to worry if the army is going to overthrow the elected person ?

 

[bwframe]

This has been a good test for us. An eye opener. It would be foolish to think that the anti's aren't trolling this board. It would be premo "ammunition" for their cause to show how unstable gun owners are, by starting a nasty Internet argument.