Should we ban assault weapons? Under the 1994 Assault-weapons ban and most other AWBs, an assault weapon is a semi-auto gun that takes a detachable magazine, with one of the following features: -pistol grip -foldable or collapsing stock -barrel shroud/full-barrel heat shield -flash hider -silencer/noise suppressor -bayonet lug should we ban guns that have one or more of these features?
No...In fact, I would promote that everyone be armed. Instead of spending time and money on banning what cannot be banned, we ought to spend time and money on mandated gun ownership, training etc. ANY non-citizen having a gun should be sentenced to 10 years in prison...no exceptions. Anyone committing a crime with a gun should get the death penalty. How about that?
If everyone had a gun the perp wouldn't try that in the first place. But if the perp were stupid enough to try it, I would advocate that anyone shooting a perp who even uses a gun to threaten, rob, assault etc. be held harmless.
We just need to bring back the draft, so today's americans will not want to own what they had to carry and use while in the military, fighting these perpetual wars for perpetual peace which is driven by elites profits. The men who were drafted and had to use these guns to kill other humans, would come back and if they wanted a gun to hunt with, they avoided the weapons used in war. My dad never wanted to see an M1 again. It bore too many bad memories that he wanted to forget. I never wanted a rifle that looked like an M16. So, I bought nice high quality hunting rifles. with small magazine capacity. I have watched guns that look like war weapons to explode in my life time, and it has been driven by men who are playing soldier, but most who were too cowardly to serve, and who got their choice of guns from Hollywood films, like Rambo, and who are led around by the nose by testosterone. War has a habit of knocking that testosterone out of the brain, and without a draft, this only happens to a few people, who then come back damaged goods, mentally, for they are overused and worn out, with continual deployments for there are not conscripted soldiers to form a large enough military to keep the mental abuse from happening, as you get with an all volunteer military. So, blame Hollywood for the current love of war guns, for they really boost the male ego, who besides wanting a big penis, wants the the most cosmetic badass looking gun to impress his friends who judge themselves by what their guns look like. It's childish, but the only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.
No, why should we let radical islam win. Anyone wanting our rights taken away is helping isis and is therefore a traitor.
Of course you can. I agree it doesn't make sense, because it will just encourage the armed robber to kill all witnesses. I like a 10-20-Life scheme. If the criminal has possession of a gun during the commission of a violent crime, add 10 years to their sentence. If they brandish the gun (threaten with it like the above), add 20 years to the sentence. If they shoot the gun at someone, make it a life without parole sentence. BTW, I'm talking about court execution. Anybody brandishing a gun committing an armed robbery is fair game for an armed citizen to shoot in self defense.
Doubtful. My grandfather was in the Army (just after Korea and before Vietnam). He wanted a rifle like he had in the service. I have a nephew-in-law who was a Marine in Afghanistan. He has an AR, and he had killed while over there. Different people have different opinions. I know two people who had opposite reactions than yours. I don't doubt your reactions, but everybody isn't like you. I will admit, I probably would react that way. The thing is the military doesnt' want a draft. Many countries that had mandatory have given up on it (namely Germany).
Well, first, we have a lot of legal immigrants and they are allowed to own guns, despite being "non-citizens." The problem with "any gun crime being the death penalty" is that it would make it so that any criminal using a gun would have no delay at all killing all witnesses, if there is no difference in sentence between armed robbery and multiple murder. Also, both the Orlando shooter and one of the San Bernardino shooters were native born citizens, FYI.
If everyone was armed, the perp would be put down before he could shoot that many. The San Bernadino and Orlando shooters would have been put down sooner. Of course, if EVERY citizen was carrying, I seriously doubt that many perps would even try a mass murder.
Of course if everyone was carrying all the time, there would be a much higher probability of emotional quarrels escalating to gunfights
More leftist logic brings us the gun free zone. They may as well put a neon sign up that says terrorists attack here, no one can defend themselves.
How well did that work out for the victims of the San Bernadino? The firearms complied with the laws of the state of California, meaning they were not classified as so-called "assault weapons" and were subject to state laws pertaining to purchase and ownership.
Most people do not carry knives But, as you seem to imply Knives are adequately lethal for self defense
Probably not because they are generally banned from public places....Besides the ArmaLite Rifle is very low power, I'd rather be carrying a hand cannon.
According to FBI stats, your'e 10-15 times more likely to be beaten or stabbed to death than killed by someone using an assault type rifle. So no I don't think a ban is in order. And when you consider that today, yesterday, the day before yesterday, tomorrow, the day after that, and everyday as far as the eye can see, 40 homosexuals will die young, each and every day from AIDS. It just shows how the media and gun grabbers have made this recent crime far more than what it is, which is a tragic nightmare for the each of the victims as well as for the responding authorities.
[video=youtube;bUUKDv85DSY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUUKDv85DSY[/video] [video=youtube;_bER09cBdbw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bER09cBdbw[/video] [video=youtube;nzkBGQx3HAc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzkBGQx3HAc[/video]
To the surprise of many, I voted "no". and I'll tell you why. I am a Liberal but I am not a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idiot. I know that 96% of gun murders are committed by handguns. I know that a majority of mass-shootings, where 4 or more random victims are shot, are done by handguns. I can see now that Assault Weapons, while designed to mimic weapons of war, have become a bit of a scapegoat by the media. And that many weapons listed as NOT being AWs, are literally just as deadly and fire the same type of bullets. Assault Weapons may have become a gun of choice for mass-killings cause the media has hyped them up as such. But one could easily kill dozens of people with a Glock, just as the Virginia Tech shooter did. What do I think a better solution than banning AWs would be? Ban magazines over 5 rounds for all semi-auto rifles and shotguns. An active shooter fumbling around trying to switch magazines would give victims time to jump him or throw chairs at him, rush him, or somehow else end his reign of terror.
Indeed it is not, especially when compared to other rifle cartridges. The .223 Remington started its existence as a small game hunting round. - - - Updated - - - There are even more detachable box magazines in general circulation than firearms, and they have no serial numbers that can be traced, nor are they subjected to background check requirements to ensure that felons are not purchasing them.
so why has it been the cartidge of choice for the US military since the 1960s? cause its a weak, less-than-lethal round?
