Assault Rifles should be banned

[Zach]

Hopefully the title will draw lots of Republican voters in to yell at me... Thats what I want!

I right now am undecided on who to vote for. I have read each sides views briefly to find what relates to me and noticed McCain wants to lift bans on ASSAULT RIFLES. In my opinion this is nuts... a real life Grand Theft Auto!

Now I know this won't mean everyone will be carrying around assault rifles, but it makes the access to these EASIER if you want one. I also know that it is our constitutional right to bear arms. I own two guns! But assault rifles? In the public? Why?

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.

Hopefully I turned the heat up on the pot... lets see where it leads.

I will post back as I find time in case some of you think I have abandoned the thread.

 

[Justus]

Zach,
do you have any knowledge of the current firearms laws?
Your statement/ question reveals that you need to do some research.

 

[ATM]

Zach,
These are points that have been hashed out many times on this and many forums. Please do a search for these threads, read them and then you are welcome to come back with a well-read opinion or new questions. Welcome to the forum

 

[Cwood]

Zach, first you need to let us know what your definition of an assault rifle is.

 

[indyjoe]

Hopefully the title will draw lots of Republican voters in to yell at me... Thats what I want!

I right now am undecided on who to vote for. I have read each sides views briefly to find what relates to me and noticed McCain wants to lift bans on ASSAULT RIFLES. In my opinion this is nuts... a real life Grand Theft Auto!

Now I know this won't mean everyone will be carrying around assault rifles, but it makes the access to these EASIER if you want one. I also know that it is our constitutional right to bear arms. I own two guns! But assault rifles? In the public? Why?

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.

Hopefully I turned the heat up on the pot... lets see where it leads.

I will post back as I find time in case some of you think I have abandoned the thread.

Classic troll post. Here is some ignorance, discuss.

You realize that the ban on "Assault Rifles" has been lifted, when it sunsetted in 2004? How many Grand Theft Auto style events with owners of legal firearms have you seen? None. Surprise. Ignoring the fact that a definition of Assault Rifle includes the capability of full auto or selective fire, now allowed for manufacture to the general population since 1986. The media and liberals like to used the term "assault rifle" for a semi automatic rifle that looks mean. Lets also ignore the fact that nice looking auto loaded hunting rifles are 10 times deadlier than an AK or AR rifle in power of cartridge. (But they sure look OK, don't they?)

Many writings of the founding fathers emphasized that they should be AS WELL armed as the government. How can you think to use something like the internet to practice the first amendment? I mean that wasn't around when the founding fathers made the first amendment. We should still be using leaded type, right?

Do you know what the difference was between a live store owner and a dead store owner in the LA riots? An AR-15. An "evil black assault rifle".

From the sounds of your comments, you have never been threatened for you life by someone who is undesirable. I have. More than once. The fact that I was allowed to legally carry a handgun saved me. It wasn't a black powder officer's pistol from the 1700's, it was a Glock. I'm pretty sure that this was what the founding fathers had in mind. Just like using a FAL in defense of an oppresive government also falls into their definitions. Read the Federalist Papers. Perhaps your ignorance will be replaced with knowledge.

How is crime in Obama's gun free wonderland of Chicago?

 

[BloodEclipse]

Zach, first you need to let us know what your definition of an assault rifle is.

True.

Zach your statement to to open ended. You want good answers ask good questions. As ATM states do some research and then ask. Then your question can be based on more then emotion.

 

[slacker]

We have the same name, but I have the cooler spelling (Zac)

Anyways, what do you consider an "assault rifle" if you were part of the group that wrote the "Assault Weapon Ban" that expired back in 2004 you would consider any of the following an assault rifle

-Magazines greater than 10 rounds
-Suppressors of any sort
-Folding, collapsible or other non-fixed stocks
-Pistol grip on a long gun
-Shortened barrels on long guns
-Threaded barrels
-Bayonet mount
-I am sure there are some others I am forgetting

Anyways, that ban is now lifted and you can legally own any of those things, and the crime rate has not gone up. People who follow the rules are not the concern, and there will always be people who refuse to obey the law, and those people can and will get their hands on anything they want bad enough.

Maybe you should take your trolling to another forum.

And also, Obama wants to ban almost all guns, so I would rather not vote at all than vote for him.

 

[Zach]

I might be uneducated on our gun laws... admittedly. I am not however ignorant and as an American have my own opinions.

I am not trying cause a riot here. I am trying to educate myself by finding out EACH sides opinions. If the topic I was concerned with was abortion I would go into an antiabortion forum and post to find their views.

In response to some of the responses I have seen. I am not saying we should carry around black powder pistols and rifles.... that would be ignorant. What I am saying, is when the consitution was struck there were no weapons advanced as those we have today. I feel I should have the right to carry a hand gun. Protect myself with a shotgun. Just not an assault rifle.

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? What do you need one of these for in a home?... or I should ask what do I need these for in the area I live in?

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.

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.

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.

To the site admin, please do not block this post... it is not intended to be hostile and is more for clarification of my own views. I was referred to this site by a gun owner and member.

Thanks for everyones time and keep your views coming!!

Zach

 

[Zach]

I AM old enough to vote and am not trying to push your buttons. I am trying to clarify some of the BIG issues with this election in my eyes.

I am a 25 year old white male with a Business degree from IU. Tapping in on the many wonderful resources of our present day... ie-the internet and forums.

I guess I could just vote without hearing this side of the story... Like many uneducated idiots would do.

 

[Justus]

I might be uneducated on our gun laws... admittedly.
I
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? What do you need one of these for in a home?... or I should ask what do I need these for in the area I live in?


I am just looking for clarification from people with a passion and I dont need to read our laws and bylaws to do that.


Zach

"Military" rifles are fully automatic and are not generally available to anyone other than the Police and the MIlitary. They cost thousands of dollars.

With a little research, you will find that an assault rifle is not what you think it is.
Maybe you should visit your local gun shop.
We can talk to you all day, but if you could look at the actual rifle
you would see that they are nothing more than semi-automatic weapons
just like the ones many hunt with.

At what feature do you draw the line on needing anything?
Do you need A/C in your home?
Do you need cable TV.
If the criminals have "assault rifles" do you really feel
that things are equal if you have a single shot hunting shotgun
at home?

 

[Tommy2Tone]

i have the right to bare arms....PERIOD. Gun laws only punish the lawful citizens....PERIOD. the 2nd amendment is in there not just to allow us to have guns to hunt and for sport. its in there so we are able to form a militia to over take the government if need be. ie: revolutionary war. now ill be the first to say i dont think there is a need to try to over throw the government. but thats the reason the amendment is in there. i dont believe the government can tell me what kind of gun i can own...so what if i want a fully auto 50 cal...maybe i like to buy cars and shoot them for fun. if i am an upstanding citizen i should be able to. i believe that if more upstanding citizens had proper training and owned guns the crime rate would drop. more criminals might die, but who really cares, they are scum!

 

[slacker]

"Military" rifles are fully automatic and are not generally available to anyone other than the Police and the MIlitary. They cost thousands of dollars.

With a little research, you will find that an assault rifle is not what you think it is.
Maybe you should visit your local gun shop.
We can talk to you all day, but if you could look at the actual rifle
you would see that they are nothing more than semi-automatic weapons
just like the ones many hunt with.

well said and not to mention many of the rounds that the "assault rifles" use are considereably smaller than average hunting rounds.

LEGEND:

1: 22 LR (long rifle)
2: 22 WMR (22 magnum)
3: 9x19 Luger (The common 9 mill.)
4: 7.62x39mm (SKS and AK-47)
5: 30-30 Winchester
6: 45/70 Government
7: 7.62x51mm NATO (308 Winchester)
8: 303 British (Enfield rifles)
9: 8mm Mauser (7.92x57mm...Mauser rifles)
10: 30-06 Springfield
11: 300 Winchester Magnum
12: 410 Shotgun, 2 1/2 inch
13: 12 gauge buckshot, 2 3/4 inch


The pic was taken from another forum.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I AM old enough to vote and am not trying to push your buttons. I am trying to clarify some of the BIG issues with this election in my eyes.

I am a 25 year old white male with a Business degree from IU. Tapping in on the many wonderful resources of our present day... ie-the internet and forums.

I guess I could just vote without hearing this side of the story... Like many uneducated idiots would do.

All right, I'll bite. Zach, I agree that it's good to be informed. Coming on and telling us at the outset that you want "lots of Republican voters" "to yell at (you)" is probably not the best way to ask for input.

So then, here are the facts. The Clinton AWB was authored by Joe Biden and was implemented in 1994. It banned 19 semi-automatic rifles by name and certain features of others. Semi-automatic means that by design,it fires one round for each pull of the trigger. Fully automatic firearms, that is, those that by design fire more than one round by a single pull of the trigger, have been strictly and tightly regulated and prohibitively expensive due to the National Firearms Act of 1934, as have been sound supressors, short-barrel rifles and shotguns, and so-called "destructive devices". Fully automatic firearms cannot lawfully be imported or manufactured for the non-law-enforcement civilian market since 1986. The 1994 AWB expired in 2004 because there was not enough support in Congress to pass a permanent ban in 1994. Of note, record numbers of incumbents, including for the first time, the sitting Speaker of the House, were ousted from Congress in 1996, most likely as a result of their support for this ill-conceived and pointless law. Additionally, crimes are typically not committed with "assault weapons", certainly not "assault rifles", the latter being capable of fully automatic fire and the former being an invented term meaning "something that looks scary", but rather with small pistols. That is, a .25 caliber pistol may not be very powerful, but no one wants to get shot with one nonetheless.

Consider also, Zach, that right now, and for the past God-knows how many years, there has been a total ban on certain drugs in our society. In no place in the US is heroin, methamphetimine, or cocaine legal for purchase at a pharmacy. (Doctors can purchase and use cocaine in their medical practice to shrink blood vessels and as an anesthetic) Despite the tight controls and the fact that those drugs are not legal anywhere, we still have a drug problem in the US. What logic would convince you that a ban on firearms of any type would be any more effective?

As was pointed out, those "assault weapons" were what made the difference during the LA riots as to which store owners were injured or killed and which came through the riots unmolested. In the hands of the law-abiding, peaceable people, guns of all types save lives.

Zach, there are people much smarter and better read than I am who have contributed to and compiled the information at Gun Facts - Your guide for debunking gun control myth. Please go to that site, download the free publication, and read. You'll find it exhaustively researched, honestly presented, and easily fact-checked.

On another subject, you said you believe that you should be able to defend yourself with a pistol. I think you'll find that everyone here will agree. Barack Obama does not, however. He wanted convicted a man who violated a local handgun ban in a Chicago suburb who had a pistol in his home and used it to foil a home invasion/robbery. Obama would have preferred that that man and his family be defenseless before criminals who have no regard for gun laws or for that matter, any other laws.

John McCain is not the best choice for America, and that is clear. John McCain is the better of the two choices running for the presidency at this time on several points, not the least of which is gun rights.

If you are really, honestly wanting to educate yourself on these issues and not just stir up trouble, I invite your attention to the above link and your continued participation. If that is not the case, I'll make every effort to have your posts and you quickly disappear from this board.

Blessings,
B

 

[kedie]

Zach,

This is the Ruger Mini-14

This is the Smith and Wesson M&P 15

Under the 1994 "assault weapons" ban, one was legal, the other was not.
Both of these firearms are shoulder fired, gas operated, magazine fed, .223/5.56MM, and capable of only semi automatic fire. These rifles fire the exact same round, and function exactly the same. The only difference is that one looks like a standard rifle, and the other looks "scary".

The 1994 ban was flawed from day one. It was based on the way a firearm looked and not the way it functioned.

 

[RonPaulSupporter]

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?

Yes, you are WAY off as to what an assault rifle is. Do you not think a common hunting rifle is capable of "superb accuracy"? I can guarantee you that a good hunting rifle is way more accurate and deadly than say an AK-47, which is the most common target (along with a few others) of this anti-gun legislation. Yes, granted, things have changed since the 18th century, but the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the right of the people to bear arms. The Constitution is NOT a "living document" like liberals want everyone to believe, it means exactly what it says. Gun legislation is just another attempt to make people feel good about their intents, but in reality it does absolutely nothing to reduce crime, and in fact has only made matters worse by disarming law-abiding citizens. All I know is that a lot of people on this forum have so-called "assault weapons" and buying them didn't make them go out a commit a mass-shooting or robbery. Instead of wanting to prevent people like those on this forum from enjoying their hobby of shooting, anti-gun libs need to focus on putting criminals in jail. Their responsible for the crimes, not the weapon.

 

[RonPaulSupporter]

Everything you need to know about scary "assault weapons".
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw]YouTube - The Truth About AK-47 Firepower[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0[/ame]

 

[indyjoe]

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? What do you need one of these for in a home?... or I should ask what do I need these for in the area I live in?

Then you are incorrect. An assault rifle is a military style rifle, with OK accuracy and rapid fire rate. Rapid fire is not as dangerous as accurate and powerful fire. Hunting rifles are generally much more accurate than more "assault rifles".

I say and AR-15 is perfect for defending the home. It is less likely to penetrate walls than most other options and lightly recoiling, which makes it much easier for a smaller person to control than a shotgun. If more than one person is breaking into my home and I have to defend myself, a semi-automatic with a 30 round magazine is not considered "overkill".

Any person who determines weapon use based on looks is a MORON. Many "nice" looking hunting weapons are much more deadly.

And to your response about just wanting to test the waters to see both sides, you sir are lying. If you were testing the waters, your post would not me titled "Assault Rifles should be banned.

 

[VUPDblue]

Zach, your logic is severely flawed, mostly in your definition of an Assault Rifle.

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? What do you need one of these for in a home?... or I should ask what do I need these for in the area I live in?

Your first fatal flaw is that you readily admit that you don't know the actual definition of an Assault Rifle, and I have highlited that bit in red. The legal definition (and thus the definition that laws would be based upon) of an Assault Rifle includes that it is capable of automatic fire. Fully automatic firearms have been regulated since 1934 and there has only been one, I say again ONE, instance where a legally owned automatic weapon was used in a crime. Citizens were banned on May 19, 1986 from owning any new production automatic weapons. What was out there then, is still out there, and prices run, on the average, about $5k-$25k thus puting them out of the price range of most ordinary gun owners. By your definition, especially the part about superb accuracy, most common hunting and sporting arms would now be Assault Rifles. I find this comparable to the D.C. ordinance that makes all magazine-fed handguns classified as Machineguns. Both are absolutely absurd and a sign of true ignorance of current law.

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

Well, I will tell you why I 'need' an AR15 rifle, and I'll use this example because that particular rifle seems to be the ire of all those who's aim it is to restrict guns in general. I 'need' an AR15 because I feel that it is particularly well suited to several areas of the shooting sports of which I choose to participate in. I can use my AR to shoot in 'Steel Challenge' matches. I can use my AR to shoot in 'Bullseye' matches. I can use my AR to shoot in '3-gun' matches. I can use my AR to shoot in 'long-range' matches. I can use my AR to shoot in the annual matches at Camp Perry. I can use my AR to hunt with. Regardless of how this rifle looks, it does not operate any different than most any other semi-auto rifle on the market today. What sets this platform apart for me is it's versatility. I won't go into that here, because it is more technical, and I don't think that you really care.

The bottom line here is that I have a legitimate use for such a rifle, and how dare you or anyone else come in and tell me that I don't deserve to use it because you have an opinion which is based on flawed logic to begin with.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Fully automatic firearms have been regulated since 1934 and there has only been one, I say again ONE, instance where a legally owned automatic weapon was used in a crime.

Wasn't that one a LEO also? I seem to recall reading that.

Blessings,
B

 

[Scutter01]

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.