Should the Federal ban on assault rifles that expired in 2004 be reinstated?
Well i love guns but we really dont NEED assult rifles
Yes ban guns. Just like banning alcohol worked during prohibition. Just like banning drugs worked. You gotta be kidding me America... what a media driven knee jerk reaction with a solution that doesn't address the real problem. You poor, soft, scared, people... Thinking of our future makes me sick.
Who committed these atrocities not the implement used to accomplish the horrific event.
Adrian are you even familiar with firearms? I can get a "clip" for a pistol with the same 30 round capacity in a bigger caliber than the typical AR15 Assualt Rifle and still fire just as fast if not faster. It is not the fault of the Assualt Rifles. The Government should be focusing on the people
So it has to be fair across the board and take away every one else's rights and beliefs, all because how the U.S. society has become irresponsible,incompetent and selfish by thinking everyone owes them something. thank you for having morals to take care of yourself and to make right choices yourself
Take them away criminals follow the law.
As soon as we take away the 2nd Amendment, it will then be a trickle affect, by removing or changing other amendments,I see that a lot of people like gov't control, big gov't control shows me how incompetent citizens are for making own decisions.
Oh yea because criminals follow the laws.
Ronald Reagan was also too liberal to win an election in the 18th century.
You can't afford a suitcase nuke. Hell, while theoretically possible, we don't know for sure if any have ever existed.
Landmines are fine by me.
That won't stop them, Greta. If a crazy person wants to kill a bunch of people, and he can't get a gun, he'll pick up a chainsaw or something.
Yeah, because crime was invented in China in A.D. 1157, shortly following the invention of the gun!
Googleplex, we are talking about the 2nd amendment to the US constitution, not whatever constitution you're talking about...
They were done by assault weapons which have high capacity clips to kill more people faster that's the reason they want to band them
I... Ah, I... I don't even know where to begin.
Just tell me you're joking and I'll go back to my flight simulator game.
Show me your data supporting this.
Satirical Nick read the FULL 2nd amendment "the right to bear arm as part of a well trained militia" so no the assault weapons ban would not violate the constitution and neither would a guns ban in general
What an idiot
Those be the words of a wise anon from the /k/ board on 4chan.
Arms, as protected by the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights, must be weapons capable of assaulting a person to be considered "arms". All other uses of arms are secondary. Knowing this, there's no way we can have "assault weapons bans" that do not violate the bill of rights.
You know if all guns were removed from our society like in the full reading of the 2nd amendment crime would come to a halt
Oh yes. The hippies. The future far left that wants to totally take our guns away.
Doopy, I couldn't have said it better myself. Kudos!
Yes, RJ, you should be able to own them. The fact that you can't do so easily is a testament to the corruption of power within Washington D.C.
Bryan, lay off the kool-aid buddy. It's laced with liberal ignorance.
Hopefully, pinkyusuck, armed civilians will be the last line of defense against a foreign invasion. We have an awfully expensive navy and Air Force that are supposed to be the first line for us...
But yeah, we are the first line of defense against crime.
I agree. I just think it's important that we, as gun rights advocates keep don't develop a habit of mis attributing quotes. I've seen some pretty extensive words put in some pretty famous mouths, e.g. the "liberty teeth" quote.
We don't need to make stuff up. We're better than that as an ideology.
Something along the lines of "what kind mushrooms were those anyway" and "look at the new kinds of colors"...
My apologies pinky. I misread the posting. I was disagreeing with omnitarian.
Cars are used for recreation, guns are used for recreation. Cars are used to bring in food for the family, guns are used to bring in food for the family. Cars are used to kill people, guns are used to kill people. It's not the tool that should be scrutinized, it's the one using the tool.
@tommysq, you think you're arguing to take them from criminals, but you forget: They're criminals. Telling them to turn in their guns will be about as effective as telling Obama's "aaah" to go away when he's nervous. It's just not gonna happen.
Don't turn them in. Give them to me. Hell, I'll even pay you for them if they're in good condition.
@afulte. You're a moron. There's nothing wrong with any of those things, and all have played a part in making this the great nation that it is today.
As an aside, the Founding Fathers described the militia (referred to in the Second Amendment) as being comprised of the whole body of the people armed with weapons and ammunition of the sort "in common usage." That includes automatic weapons, planes, tanks and all the rest.
@Vexed, the question is not necessarily one of need. It's a matter of exercising the right to have and use effective weaponry in order to carry out my job as the first line of defense against crime and foreign aggression, and as the check and balance of the fourth branch of government.
Kudos @vexed! You've stopped drinking the 'victimhood' kool-aid, and are well on your way to be a great American!
In an elementary school, a baseball bat could take out 20 kids in a hurry. It's not the type of weapon that's the problem, it's the murderer.
Very few Americans are getting an "assault rifle" for Christmas. A stock civilian-legal AR-15/AK, etc. manufactured after 1986 does not meet the definition of an assault rifle. I think you mean that lot of Americans will be getting a rifle "of the sort in common usage."
You illustrated my point Cobra. There is no loophole. Any firearm purchased online or from a dealer at a gun show still has to go through the proper channels, and the buyer still has to pass the same background checks as if buying at a store. The "loophole" is the fallback argument of the ignorant.
And that statistic is why we have remained a free nation for over 200 years.
When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was signed there should been a rebellion against the Feds. What were the people thinking back then?
Everytime I either have a firearm shipped to him or I purchase one from him.
I disagree pinky. I have purchased firearms at gun shows and my father-in-law is an FFL dealer whom I have had firearms shipped to from online retailers. In both instances I have had to complete the ATF paperwork, even from my father-in-law who knows my complete background from having to run it
By plotting and carrying out a mass murder what makes everyone think they are not going to get their hands on the weapon of their choice even if it is illegal?
Good grief, bottom line is all of these horrible mass events could have been perpetrated by the same people with any type of weapon but just because they chose a specific type of weapon means we should outlaw it for all the honest and law abiding citizens too? If a person is going to break the law
The "gun show/online loophole" fallacy is a blatant lie perpetrated by the liberals in government, and mindlessly repeated by their ignorant drones who are too lazy to actually research the issue. There is no loophole.
There is no "gun show", or "online" "loophole". Firearms purchased online must be shipped to an FFL holder (gun store), who then performs all of the required background checks and paperwork before turning the firearm over to the purchaser. Same goes for gun show sales.
And almost without exception, these mass murders have happened in 'gun-free' zones. Maybe we should just get rid of 'gun-free' zones instead. It would be more effective.