Ban Assault Rifles?

[Hobby]

I probably would vote to ban assault rifles from being purchased without a background check and a need for such weapons. Assault rifles IMO are overkill!  They are a blast to shoot in a safe confined area but really don't belong out on the streets. The idea behind the 2nd amendment is for self-protection and the ability to defend the community when called upon. The second is not to give permission to stockpile weapons to wage a war, that's what we have armed police and military for. I can protect my home with a handgun and shotgun, I don't need a semi-automatic with a clip that holds a dozen rounds or more. With all this said I would never vote to ban guns or abolish the second...

[HighStepper]

The 10-year ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on August 25, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994.[1] The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision. Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded. Link

I agree with you that these type weapons are not ideal for home defense from a criminal break in. Personally I think a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun is ideal. Use ammo loads that don't penetrate walls.

The average Joe citizen should not have weapons of war. So, to avoid the "they are going to take our guns away" just cut it off with no more manufacture/sales. The only way you get one is from someone that has one, with background checks.

[bligslick]

I'll try to find it and post it, but I saw a video a while back, this guy said 5 guys with guns were outside his house yelling and starting shit. He had a handgun prepped and showed them and they continued to be aggressive.... He then went back inside and came out with his AR-15. They quickly dispersed.  So, while maybe not needed by everyone, some people live in sketchy neighborhoods with sketchy incidents that can happen around their home. In this case, he said that if he didn't have his AR-15, he thinks he'd have been in a gun fight.

[Hobby]

I'll try to find it and post it, but I saw a video a while back, this guy said 5 guys with guns were outside his house yelling and starting shit. He had a handgun prepped and showed them and they continued to be aggressive.... He then went back inside and came out with his AR-15. They quickly dispersed.  So, while maybe not needed by everyone, some people live in sketchy neighborhoods with sketchy incidents that can happen around their home. In this case, he said that if he didn't have his AR-15, he thinks he'd have been in a gun fight.

A double barrel shotgun is just as intimidating.  And a jacking a round in a pump shotgun will make the hair on the back of your neck stand up!  I doubt it was the AR 15, it was having a weapon that scared them off.  With a shotgun you don't have to be a good marksman, all that is needed is to aim in their general direction and pull the trigger. Close up a shotgun can do more damage.  A AR 15 might not stop a bear but a 12 gauge shot gun slug will usually do the trick.

[Bordendaytime]

I probably would vote to ban assault rifles from being purchased without a background check and a need for such weapons. Assault rifles IMO are overkill!  They are a blast to shoot in a safe confined area but really don't belong out on the streets. The idea behind the 2nd amendment is for self-protection and the ability to defend the community when called upon. The second is not to give permission to stockpile weapons to wage a war, that's what we have armed police and military for. I can protect my home with a handgun and shotgun, I don't need a semi-automatic with a clip that holds a dozen rounds or more. With all this said I would never vote to ban guns or abolish the second...

1) The .223/5.56 was a light hunting cartridge before the AR rifle was created
2) The AR style rifle was created originally for the civlilian market, not the military. The Wiki of the AR-10/Armalite company explains it
3) The SCOTUS has found the police are not legally obligated to protect individuals, but rather the community as a collective, and the 2nd amendment is for individuals, as the other of the first 9 rights in the Bill of Rights are. It's an individual right, not a collective one, same as free speech etc.
4) There are numerous, well established shooting sports based around the AR style rifle.

I do not own one, but am a owner of many firearms and a life long hunter and shooting sports practitioner. I feel the AR rifle, along with other "advanced" firearms should be treated much the way pilot licenses are treated: each level of aircraft requires a new level of training, as well as each mode of flight requires additional training. VFR is basic flight, while IFR requies instrument training. Single engine/fixed prop/fixed gear is basic flight while Multi engine/adjustable prop/retractable gear requires additional training. The 2nd amendment guarantees a person a right to arm themselves for protection. I think it's okay to look at segmenting "protection choices" into various levels requiring various committment of training. The only way an 18 year old should be able to possess that kind of firearm is after he/she has completed armed service basic training, unless they are willing to submit to the proper training, and fund it themselves, as civilians. That alone would deter many currently "legal" purchases like the one in Texas from happening in the first place.

[Hobby]

1) The .223/5.56 was a light hunting cartridge before the AR rifle was created
2) The AR style rifle was created originally for the civlilian market, not the military. The Wiki of the AR-10/Armalite company explains it
3) The SCOTUS has found the police are not legally obligated to protect individuals, but rather the community as a collective, and the 2nd amendment is for individuals, as the other of the first 9 rights in the Bill of Rights are. It's an individual right, not a collective one, same as free speech etc.
4) There are numerous, well established shooting sports based around the AR style rifle.

I do not own one, but am a owner of many firearms and a life long hunter and shooting sports practitioner. I feel the AR rifle, along with other "advanced" firearms should be treated much the way pilot licenses are treated: each level of aircraft requires a new level of training, as well as each mode of flight requires additional training. VFR is basic flight, while IFR requies instrument training. Single engine/fixed prop/fixed gear is basic flight while Multi engine/adjustable prop/retractable gear requires additional training. The 2nd amendment guarantees a person a right to arm themselves for protection. I think it's okay to look at segmenting "protection choices" into various levels requiring various committment of training. The only way an 18 year old should be able to possess that kind of firearm is after he/she has completed armed service basic training, unless they are willing to submit to the proper training, and fund it themselves, as civilians. That alone would deter many currently "legal" purchases like the one in Texas from happening in the first place.

I agree with you... in order to make these changes and have them become law, the second amendment may need to be updated with provisions for current gun owners to be grandfathered in. However I don't see this happening, the majority of gun owners do not want the 2nd amendment touched. In other countries where there are bans on guns horrific violence occurs when a bus is blown up... what will the left say if buses become targets, ban buses? Difficult to stop Evil but it might be able to slow it down.

[Bande]

I agree with you... in order to make these changes and have them become law, the second amendment may need to be updated with provisions for current gun owners to be grandfathered in. However I don't see this happening, the majority of gun owners do not want the 2nd amendment touched. In other countries where there are bans on guns horrific violence occurs when a bus is blown up... what will the left say if buses become targets, ban buses? Difficult to stop Evil but it might be able to slow it down.

Many other countries do not have freedoms we have.
So one reason for the right to have firearms is to go against a tyranny government. Does one expect to fight with a pistol and a single shot long gun? Hell To The NO....

[Hobby]

When was the last time the US was tyranny government? Well almost had one with Trump, close call...lol  Fill the streets with drugs and assault rifles that should make going out at night fun!

[Blkfyre]

Guests are not allowed to view images in posts, please Register or Login


The red line shows when the assault weapon ban ended. Tell me again how access to guns isn't the problem.

[Bande]

When was the last time the US was tyranny government? Well almost had one with Trump, close call...lol  Fill the streets with drugs and assault rifles that should make going out at night fun!

So, just because there has not be a issue the right should be given up? Ever think that maybe no issues had due to possible repercussions?

[Hobby]

Guests are not allowed to view images in posts, please Register or Login


The red line shows when the assault weapon ban ended. Tell me again how access to guns isn't the problem.

Tell me again how open borders don't increase drug trafficking and bring drugs into the US that find their way into the bodies of kids? I would like to see Democrats be in favor of securing our border from illegal and drugs smuggling but this is not going to happen either.

[Hobby]

So, just because there has not be a issue the right should be given up? Ever think that maybe no issues had due to possible repercussions?

Did I say they should give up, nope... I think they should be reasonable about what types of guns are sold. I think there are some bipartisan efforts on this subject being discussed in our congress.

[HighStepper]

Many other countries do not have freedoms we have.
So one reason for the right to have firearms is to go against a tyranny government. Does one expect to fight with a pistol and a single shot long gun? Hell To The NO....

2nd amendment "well-regulated Militia" was to PROTECT the GOVERNMENT. https://fantasysaloon.com/index.php?msg=2472

To guard against tyranny of government is a newer twist.  Most notably by the Black Panthers. https://fantasysaloon.com/index.php?msg=4090

To fight off government you will need a lot more than AR15 type weapons. Tanks, Black Hawk Helicopters, fighter Jets, antiaircraft missiles etc. 

[HighStepper]

Tell me again how open borders don't increase drug trafficking and bring drugs into the US that find their way into the bodies of kids? I would like to see Democrats be in favor of securing our border from illegal and drugs smuggling but this is not going to happen either.

People keep using the term "open border" without fully understanding the meaning. The border between California and Nevada is an open border. There may be agricultural inspection stations, but there is no restriction on people.

The border between the US and Mexico is not an open border. The vast majority of what are known as enforcement encounters result in U.S. immigration officials turning people away at the border.

So, we can discuss increasing enforcement resources and methods to reduce further the number of people coming into the country illegally.

[Blkfyre]

Many other countries do not have freedoms we have.
So one reason for the right to have firearms is to go against a tyranny government. Does one expect to fight with a pistol and a single shot long gun? Hell To The NO....

"I'm not sure I've seen a level of self-delusion greater than the "I need my guns so I can overthrow a tyrannical government" crowd. Buddy, the US government spends $800 BILLION a year on defense. They could level your entire neighbourhood from the Gulf of Mexico if they wanted."

Taken from the internet, but no less true...