Majority of Americans support assault weapons ban....

[they don't love you like i love you]

Any rifle that fires more than one bullet each time the trigger is pulled is illegal.

I don't think that applies to submachine guns like Uzis though which is kind of perplexing as they have zero legit use. You can't use them to hunt and for self defense they're likely to hit bystanders and are unwieldy. Their main purpose is for drive bys. Why would any non gang member have any use for one? "Defend muh FREEDOMS against government TYRANNY" should not be a valid answer to anyone who lives in the real world.

[Joe Republic]

The amount of non-military families that possess automatic weaponry is extraordinarily low.

Yes. What does that have to do with this topic though?

Can you stop?  We don't have to know every technical term about guns to know which ones need banning, any more than your side needs to fully understand the Qur'an to know you want its followers banned.

     It reminds me of Carolyn Maloney wanting to ban "shoulder things that go up". These threads are hilarious, because the gun control crowd proves consistently that they know nothing about what they're trying to ban.

Does it f'ing matter?  This is really how you want to defend people's right to own any kind of gun that can shoot dozens of people in under a minute; because we don't know its technical specifications? 

[Virginiá]

Don't proposals like these tend to get a temporary bump in support when tragedies like these occur?

Before we go banning guns, we should be sure that 1) it will actually reduce shootings and have a notable impact on society, and 2) That people still support it consistently even when there is no shooting aftermath on peoples minds

I know certain people don't like hearing arguments against an assault weapons ban, but the shooter could just as easily went in there holding 2 glocks (handgun) with another 2 holstered, all of which have 17 rounds each. Takes very little time to reload.

And for the record, I am for gun control, but only for measures that actually work. I'm not entirely convinced such a ban would reduce shootings or the number of causalities in shootings.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The amount of non-military families that possess automatic weaponry is extraordinarily low.

Yes. What does that have to do with this topic though?

Can you stop?  We don't have to know every technical term about guns to know which ones need banning, any more than your side needs to fully understand the Qur'an to know you want its followers banned.

     It reminds me of Carolyn Maloney wanting to ban "shoulder things that go up". These threads are hilarious, because the gun control crowd proves consistently that they know nothing about what they're trying to ban.

Does it f'ing matter?  This is really how you want to defend people's right to own any kind of gun that can shoot dozens of people in under a minute; because we don't know its technical specifications? 

     This is about the nature of legislation. It's kind of hard to pass laws when you don't know what you're passing them on. If a member of Congress proposes a bill to ban "any kind of gun that can shoot dozens of people in under a minute", it's not going to do a whole lot because of how vague it is.

     You might be thinking that the politicians can do better with this, but they haven't. I already gave you the example of Congresswoman Maloney. The AWB is another fine example, actually. Our Legislative branch of government has proven itself quite incompetent at advancing gun control policies.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

But why are assault weapons legal in the first place? What on earth purpose do they serve? Jesus Christ, why do people -- probably 99% men -- have to have an assault rifle, ever, except to fight in war?

As a female, I will never understand or approve of the mindset that thinks it needs a weapon of mass destruction for any reason other than that our country is at war.

     Civilian purchase of assault rifles has been heavily restricted since 1934. Whether or not people need such things, most people don't have them and can't afford them.

An assault rifle is a particular kind of weapon that can has allows for selecting between automatic and semi-automatic modes.  They were invented in WW2 by the Germans in WW2 and were first used by the US military afterward the war.  But yes, very heavily restricted along with other automatic weapons, especially since 1986.

[dead0man]

I don't think that applies to submachine guns like Uzis though which is kind of perplexing as they have zero legit use. You can't use them to hunt and for self defense they're likely to hit bystanders and are unwieldy. Their main purpose is for drive bys. Why would any non gang member have any use for one? "Defend muh FREEDOMS against government TYRANNY" should not be a valid answer to anyone who lives in the real world.

submachine guns are automatic by definition (the ones that would stereotypicaly be used in a Hollywood driveby), thus therefore virtually illegal in the US.  A semiauto that kind of looks like a submachine gun exist, but they are functionally just sh**tty handguns.

[Free Bird]

Any rifle that fires more than one bullet each time the trigger is pulled is illegal.

I don't think that applies to submachine guns like Uzis though which is kind of perplexing as they have zero legit use. You can't use them to hunt and for self defense they're likely to hit bystanders and are unwieldy. Their main purpose is for drive bys. Why would any non gang member have any use for one? "Defend muh FREEDOMS against government TYRANNY" should not be a valid answer to anyone who lives in the real world.

That IS a valid reason. Indeed one look at the founding will find it to be one of the two main purposes of the Second Amendment.

[Free Bird]

The amount of non-military families that possess automatic weaponry is extraordinarily low.

Yes. What does that have to do with this topic though?

Can you stop?  We don't have to know every technical term about guns to know which ones need banning, any more than your side needs to fully understand the Qur'an to know you want its followers banned.

     It reminds me of Carolyn Maloney wanting to ban "shoulder things that go up". These threads are hilarious, because the gun control crowd proves consistently that they know nothing about what they're trying to ban.

Does it f'ing matter?  This is really how you want to defend people's right to own any kind of gun that can shoot dozens of people in under a minute; because we don't know its technical specifications? 

Oh the ignorance. So delicious. All a big scary AR-15 is is a cosmetically modified hunting rifle. It's functionally the same as a pistol.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The amount of non-military families that possess automatic weaponry is extraordinarily low.

Yes. What does that have to do with this topic though?

Can you stop?  We don't have to know every technical term about guns to know which ones need banning, any more than your side needs to fully understand the Qur'an to know you want its followers banned.

Point 1: If you can find a single instance of my supporting a proposed categorical ban on Muslim immigration or any other Muslim-only law, I will leave this forum. I have always been critical of such proposals and you should be able to find a pattern of posts by me verifying this dating all the way back to the original proposal in December. In fact it was the combination of the Muslim ban and the suggestion that we start murdering Arab children as part of some tit for tat that solidified my decision to not vote Trump in November.  Yeah, you and I disagree on guns. But if you're going to try some B.S. non-sequitur ad hominem attack on me, at least try to find one that has a kernel of truth to it.

Point 2: If you are calling for a government ban on some otherwise legal item, and this ban is punishable by criminal penalties and enforced by men with guns who will resort to violence if you resist their attempts to arrest you, I actually think you should know the specifics of what you are trying to ban. And as a matter of constitutional law, government bans on anything cannot be so vague that the public is unable to conform their activity to the ban. So for the sake of your own policy opinions, learn what you want, because if you managed to get your ban automatic weapons, that will not affect a single AR-15. Isn't that what you want? It's not like the Feds have the magical power to say "Oh well even though they banned cows, they probably meant to ban pigs, so we'll enforce that too". Government IS violence, and the idea that someone would push for criminal bans on something without even knowing what it is they are banning is frightening, stupid, and an unlikely way to get what they actually want.

Point 3: As Shua pointed out, you literally compared the logic of your position on banning guns to Trump's position on banning Muslims. How intelligent of you.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Any rifle that fires more than one bullet each time the trigger is pulled is illegal.

I don't think that applies to submachine guns like Uzis though which is kind of perplexing as they have zero legit use. You can't use them to hunt and for self defense they're likely to hit bystanders and are unwieldy. Their main purpose is for drive bys. Why would any non gang member have any use for one? "Defend muh FREEDOMS against government TYRANNY" should not be a valid answer to anyone who lives in the real world.

That IS a valid reason. Indeed one look at the founding will find it to be one of the two main purposes of the Second Amendment.

The fact that a specific group of eighteenth-century intellectuals had a reason in mind doesn't automatically make the reason good. Yes, I'm aware that this is an argument for repealing or modifying the Second Amendment rather than for attempting to legislate with it still in place.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Clearly if a majority of people support it, they must understand what they are voting on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/27/new-study-confirms-that-80-percent-of-americans-support-mandatory-labeling-of-foods-containing-dna/

When the 'majority of Americans' opposed gay marriage, I'm sure all the liberals were clamoring to listen to the majority as well.

The majority should never ever be listened to. It's amazing how people expect the voters to have a clue on these matters.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Any rifle that fires more than one bullet each time the trigger is pulled is illegal.

I don't think that applies to submachine guns like Uzis though which is kind of perplexing as they have zero legit use. You can't use them to hunt and for self defense they're likely to hit bystanders and are unwieldy. Their main purpose is for drive bys. Why would any non gang member have any use for one? "Defend muh FREEDOMS against government TYRANNY" should not be a valid answer to anyone who lives in the real world.

That IS a valid reason. Indeed one look at the founding will find it to be one of the two main purposes of the Second Amendment.

Then how do all the democratic and free countries in the world without Second Amendment equivalents exist?

Also what do you think would happen to someone who killed a federal agent DEFENDING THEIR FREEDOMS? Hell those idiots in Oregon didn't kill anyone and they'll be locked up without freedom for quite awhile.

[/]

C:-)

[hopper]

Of course assault weapons should be banned. Why does any regular American(non law- enforcement or non-military) need an assault weapon? Common sense could tell you that you don't need an assault weapon.

[YaBoyNY]

The amount of non-military families that possess automatic weaponry is extraordinarily low.

Yes. What does that have to do with this topic though?

Nothing aside from the fact that automatic weaponry is a better term than "assault weapons" for this sort of topic. Maybe I should've clarified my statement: Any semi-automatic modification of an automatic weapon OR automatic weapon.

Any rifle that fires more than one bullet each time the trigger is pulled is illegal.

I don't think that applies to submachine guns like Uzis though which is kind of perplexing as they have zero legit use. You can't use them to hunt and for self defense they're likely to hit bystanders and are unwieldy. Their main purpose is for drive bys. Why would any non gang member have any use for one? "Defend muh FREEDOMS against government TYRANNY" should not be a valid answer to anyone who lives in the real world.

That IS a valid reason. Indeed one look at the founding will find it to be one of the two main purposes of the Second Amendment.

Your average gun-owning American with minimal weapons training vs. the world's most advanced fighting force which doesn't even need to field boots on the ground to kill you if they don't want to.

For some reason I feel like the "muh gubmint tyrrany" doesn't really hold water as an argument.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Common sense could tell you that you don't need an assault weapon.

I'm getting really sick of this argument. Gay men don't need to have consensual butt sex. Somehow I doubt that the "need" argument would convince any gay men to oppose the outcome in Lawrence v. Texas. A right is a right irrespective of need, that's why it's a right.

[MaxQue]

Common sense could tell you that you don't need an assault weapon.

I'm getting really sick of this argument. Gay men don't need to have consensual butt sex. Somehow I doubt that the "need" argument would convince any gay men to oppose the outcome in Lawrence v. Texas. A right is a right irrespective of need, that's why it's a right.

Constutition gives a right to wear weapons. Not a right to wear all weapons.

[MK]

Common sense could tell you that you don't need an assault weapon.

I'm getting really sick of this argument. Gay men don't need to have consensual butt sex. Somehow I doubt that the "need" argument would convince any gay men to oppose the outcome in Lawrence v. Texas. A right is a right irrespective of need, that's why it's a right.

Constutition gives a right to wear weapons. Not a right to wear all weapons.

With the way those folks in that club reacted (or lack thereof) he could have did just as much damage with 2 hand 9mm hand guns.  Liberals sound silly talking about firearms they know nothing about and using terms like "assault weapons" what in the hell is that?


My fav is Rep. Grayson  "shoots off 700 rounds in a minute"  oh boy...

[politicallefty]

Common sense could tell you that you don't need an assault weapon.

I'm getting really sick of this argument. Gay men don't need to have consensual butt sex. Somehow I doubt that the "need" argument would convince any gay men to oppose the outcome in Lawrence v. Texas. A right is a right irrespective of need, that's why it's a right.

Constutition gives a right to wear weapons. Not a right to wear all weapons.

I think it's quite obvious that a Constitution Party avatar means fetuses and guns are more important than actual human lives. Comparing consensual sex to possession of a military-grade assault weapon is a new one, I have to admit, but you really shouldn't be too surprised.

I'd like to know why it's okay for a private citizen to own a Sigsauer MCX and not a surface-to-air missile? If you believe the former is legal and not the latter, there must be some line. What is that line and how is it in line with the Second Amendment? Unlike some of those on the right, I read the entire text of the Second Amendment, including the prefatory clause.

[MK]

Common sense could tell you that you don't need an assault weapon.

I'm getting really sick of this argument. Gay men don't need to have consensual butt sex. Somehow I doubt that the "need" argument would convince any gay men to oppose the outcome in Lawrence v. Texas. A right is a right irrespective of need, that's why it's a right.

Constutition gives a right to wear weapons. Not a right to wear all weapons.

I think it's quite obvious that a Constitution Party avatar means fetuses and guns are more important than actual human lives. Comparing consensual sex to possession of a military-grade assault weapon is a new one, I have to admit, but you really shouldn't be too surprised.

I'd like to know why it's okay for a private citizen to own a Sigsauer MCX and not a surface-to-air missile? If you believe the former is legal and not the latter, there must be some line. What is that line and how is it in line with the Second Amendment? Unlike some of those on the right, I read the entire text of the Second Amendment, including the prefatory clause.

The Sig MCX is a carbine therefore a rife which is a type of arms, thus as it relates to the 2ND shall not be infringed upon.  Automatics(Thompson SS) have been banned since 1934 unless you owned one of the pre-banned ones which only the super rich could prob afford and or collectors.  A missile isn't something granted to you as a right to own because its not a firearm.

Fetuses are people despite the lefts love for killing the unborn and using them as spare parts.


Speaking of sex and guns.  2 guns if I could afford or the 1934 ban was ever lifted.

The Glock 18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw-o3p4ZMtE   

Beretta 93R  - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1cFUJEaYrI

Pure sex right there.

[they don't love you like i love you]

But why can't we own missiles to DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS since they'd clearly be needed battling some tyrannical government in the modern era?

[dead0man]

something smells like straw in your post Frenchy BRTD...

Point 3: As Shua pointed out, you literally compared the logic of your position on banning guns to Trump's position on banning Muslims. How intelligent of you.

He has a weird case of whataboutism.

[they don't love you like i love you]

something smells like straw in your post Frenchy BRTD...

No seeing as how someone in this very thread stated that the purpose of owning assault rifles is to defend from government tyranny.

[politicallefty]

The Sig MCX is a carbine therefore a rife which is a type of arms, thus as it relates to the 2ND shall not be infringed upon.  Automatics(Thompson SS) have been banned since 1934 unless you owned one of the pre-banned ones which only the super rich could prob afford and or collectors.  A missile isn't something granted to you as a right to own because its not a firearm.

Fetuses are people despite the lefts love for killing the unborn and using them as spare parts.

My point stands as strong as ever. The Second Amendment only relates to what has been been passed since 1934? Your arguments are not logical at all. You are saying that only guns as you define them are arms protected by the Second Amendment? In part, I do understand you. You have no problem at all with someone like Omar Mateen being able to obtain an assault weapon and massacring people you apparently have no sympathy for. If you knew any better, you would know that the Second Amendment was never intended to be for self-defense or hunting.

I'm sure people like you believe that gay sex is as deadly as an assault weapon. No, it isn't. If you believe that, you need serious help. Trump supporters like you don't give a rat's ass if gay people or Latinos die. Yeah, it was a coincidence that a mass murder was inflicted upon a gay bar on Latin Night.

[dead0man]

something smells like straw in your post Frenchy BRTD...

No seeing as how someone in this very thread stated that the purpose of owning assault rifles is to defend from government tyranny.

A.they didn't say assault rifles
2.missiles ain't small arms
III.there are always three things