Hypothetically speaking, if assault weapons are banned what liberties will you be losing?

Well Obama has fully revealed his position, now if congress acts in favor of his laws i would like to know what liberties you will be losing and why you feel that way.

I am generally interested in hearing your personal views on how these laws will affect your individual liberty, so far i haven't been able to stomach this debate no matter where i see or hear it, so indulge me with an intelligent response giving me your reasons for or against the looming assault weapons ban.

Keep it civil, if you foam at the mouth please clean up after yourself.

Most of the "dudes" on this site want to pump massive amounts of bullets into you should you enter their property at night. Serious amounts of firepower! Multipul rounds per second, smashing and pulverising bone and sinew. They gotta make sure the job is done and make sure it's massive overkill with lots of manly noise!

Seems a simple single bullet is not required anymore.

reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89


I believe the definition of liberty answers that question.
www.merriam-webster.com...

1: the quality or state of being free:

a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint
c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e: the power of choice

For an expanded definition, please visit the link.

To answer your question in more depth, if my gun is taken away, I will no longer be able to defend my body or my property from intruders. The government cannot protect me from people like this and should not be allowed to take away my right to protect myself and my home.

Well for one, no more fresh duck or deer meat at my house. This will take away my husbands freedom to go in the woods and hunt for food for his family. It's not all about "thug life" and crazy people. What about the people who are hit with hard times and survive off hunting for their family. Ever see that show about people in Alaska who literally survive off this and growing their own food.

"The right to bear arms" does not read "The right to bear arms that your government says you can bear." Simple as that. No more, no less, no foaming.

reply to post by CaptainBeno

Seems a simple single bullet is not required anymore.

I've been trained in self defense. The one thing that was reiterated over and over again is that you should shoot to kill. If you don't, the perp will lie through his teeth while suing you for everything you have.
The second most reiterated comment is to never shoot anyone in the back. This is not self defense.

reply to post by greenfox83


Um, what ever happened to a single shot rifle? Do snipers in the Army use assult rifles? I'm guessing, one shot, one kill? How many dear in one space mate??

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89

 

I believe the definition of liberty answers that question.
www.merriam-webster.com...

1: the quality or state of being free:

a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint
c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e: the power of choice

For an expanded definition, please visit the link.

To answer your question in more depth, if my gun is taken away, I will no longer be able to defend my body or my property from intruders. The government cannot protect me from people like this and should not be allowed to take away my right to protect myself and my home.

So because you will be vulnerable where you once wern't this to you is a loss of liberty?

reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89


It would be the equivalent of them opening up the dictionary and declaring a ban on any words that they did not like because they were malicious or their only purpose is unacceptable in a civil society.
The tired argument that will be brought to counter that is words don't kill people, which is not true. Words kill people on a daily basis, just not in the context that you would think. Now ask yourself how is this an assault on any free persons liberties? It's not just pro gun people that are losing liberties over this, it's everyone's right to bear arms. Willingly giving up a right because you don't use it, is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

reply to post by CaptainBeno

What do you think he's using? An AK-47 automatic haha, that'll bring home the meat!

...if assault weapons are banned what liberties will you be losing?

Originally posted by greenfox83
Well for one, no more fresh duck or deer meat at my house.

Y'all shoot ducks with an assault rifle? Even to this ignorant foreigner...sounds pretty hard-core!

What is an assault weapon? Do you even know? Not being belligerent but it's a valid question. Why do cosmetic changes to a gun make it more dangerous in the eyes of politicians and scared people? Please take the time to watch a slideshow and learn a little something www.assaultweapon.info...

Originally posted by Afterthought

1: the quality or state of being free:

a: the power to do as one pleases

You do not have that now.

b: freedom from physical restraint

Nor that. Depending on where you choose to be.

e: the power of choice

And you don't have that. Unless you self limit your options, your choices are not yours to choose.

To answer your question in more depth, if my gun is taken away, I will no longer be able to defend my body or my property from intruders. The government cannot protect me from people like this and should not be allowed to take away my right to protect myself and my home.

He asked about assault weapons. Not everything.

Can you answer it without resorting to strawmen to bolster your points?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Hahahaha we used to just catch them and break their necks?

Next it will be handgrenades?

reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89

So because you will be vulnerable where you once wern't this to you is a loss of liberty?

Absolutely.
It's my right to protect myself. I've had two stalkers in two years time that I've had to involve the police with. If one of these fools decided to act instead of talking so much, I wouldn't have had time to alert the police.
Infringing on one's right to self defense is the worst thing that a government can do to a person.

Until the term "assault weapon" is redefined with some logic, we stand to lose a lot.
Several of those features are purely cosmetic, and all of them are made for uses besides killing people.
Also, if the police and military are allowed to have them, we need to be able to. They really aren't put through enough mental background checking/upkeep and firearms training to be trusted.

Since gun nuts are all about the preservation of their second amendment rights, I think we should preserve historical context and integrity and they can only have muskets and cannons.

Guy and Gals, seriously can you tell me why you need the firepower you beat your chests about so much?

What's wrong with a nice Gloc 9mm semi auto pistol? I would personaly s* myself if you brought that to a fight.

Nuff said.

Unfortunately, "assault" weapons as they are being called include many weapons that just really aren't all that dangerous; they just look scary.

There are many common types of "assault weapons" they are talking about being banned that are commonly used in hunting and self defense.

My understanding is that there are a lot of people that choose the "assault weapons" like AR-15s and the like choose them because they are more comfortable, allow for longer times between reload, and sometimes have less recoil than your stereotypical hunting gun.

Recoil and comfort can be particularly important, and weapon choices are more limited to boot, when you're considering weaponry for smaller men and many women. Putting a stringent limit on "assault weapons" is bad because the label applies to such a wide arc of guns that many of the weapons that a smaller man or woman would be likely to use (and would also be more comfortable for a larger man) would be banned. Recoil is a major factor for some people. If you can't handle the recoil, it can dislocate your shoulder or break your collar bone. So you can't just load everybody up with a 12 gauge or something.

Being a small woman, I'm concerned about safety when I'm home alone. And I'm also concerned about a government that thinks I'm somehow safer in a society where only criminals with ties to the black market can get guns while the vast majority of the guns that I can get access to in order to defend myself I won't even be able to handle.

That's my understanding of the issue at hand, anyway.

Originally posted by zayonara
"The right to bear arms" does not read "The right to bear arms that your government says you can bear." Simple as that. No more, no less, no foaming.

edit on 16-1-2013 by zayonara because: (no reason given)

So you include nuclear arms.

It's part of that parcel. Or do you draw the line?

It has to be drawn. But who does it, and where?

That's what I've been trying to find out all along, but I keep getting "404 - just you try!" errors when the page tries to load.

Hrumph.