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

reply to post by TDawgRex


Mate, less of the insults. It was a legit question. Since when have you needed to spray bullets? Doesn't one do the job?


Edit: Here we go, I'm gonna get the "duh, you should educate yourself about guns (like I would want too) duh, guns don't spray bullets" speech now aint i?

Duh.

reply to post by TruthSeekerMike


I get so tired of the "military grade" response to the fact that there is no such classification as "assualt weapon". The term "miltary grade" was the first "assault weapon". Seeing as there is no true definition of "miltary grade" the gov defined as destructive devices (bombs, grenades), machine guns, SBR's, silencers (although silencers are far more practical in sporting/hunting situations than military).

No all of a sudden, semi-autos dressed up to look like their big brothers are military grade? Why doesn't our miltary use them then? Well they look alike, so they must be right?

OP, you want an answer to actually give you a reason for keeping semi-autos or one that supports your position? Truth is you know nothing about guns if you think semi-auto is only designed for military apps or "killing". Heck even a sling-shot is designed for killing, doesn't make it "military grade". And, the Ruger 10/22 semi-auto rifle is the most common in circulation, yet I fail to see the "military grade" to that weapon. And, I challenge to live amongst wolves/coyotes/foxes/wildpig/angry javalina/etc and defend against them with a single shot rifle.

These rifles should not be banned because not infringed means just that. Without a constitutional convention to amend . . . our right can not be legislated against. Now you can make the point that the gov has already outlawed certain arms, so we have seemed to have already given up this right. You would be right and that is why we should fight to preserve what is left.

Everybody keeps pointing to England as a model, yet they don't even have a right to free speech. They have a culture of servitude, IHMS. Not the country I want the US to emulate on the rights of their citizens.

My favorite part, is when people from other countries think they can dictate what my right are.

Originally posted by exitusstatuquo
The fact is that the militia in the USA is defined as every able bodied person trained in arms and possessing such ready to defend life, liberty, and property within their local areas of influence. We the people will lose that historic and strategic right if there is a so called assault weapon ban. The ability to defend your local area by force of arms with your neighbor is a basic right that is defended in no uncertain terms by the second amendment. It allowed the United states to repel the invading British in the war of 1812 for instance.

The first of such bans in 1994 was in an anti militia climate as well by democrats which see armed peasants as a problem for their institutionalizing of globalist socialist/corporatist one world government expansion.

Thank you! I believe besides the democrat part this is the most logical point against the ban.( i am in no way demeaning your comment, me and my family are mostly left leaning if you cant tell)

Thank you for the input!

So in order to maintain this sense of safety against an overpowered government, how do you purpose the issue of gun misuse without infringing this delicate liberty?

On top of that, if you dont agree that we need the right to form armed militias, what other option is there to ensure a failsafe against ultimate political corruption?

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

Mate, less of the insults. It was a legit question. Since when have you needed to spray bullets? Doesn't one do the job?


Edit: Here we go, I'm gonna get the "duh, you should educate yourself about guns (like I would want too) duh, guns don't spray bullets" speech now aint i?

Duh.

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

To answer your question one does not always do the job.

reply to post by T4NG0


Average gun exchange happens within 10ft of each other and last five seconds. In those five seconds, five shots are fired on average with 1 bullets striking. That's 20%. With a ten round mag, that's 2 hits over 10 seconds.

Here's hoping you hit the CNS!

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by TruthSeekerMike

 

I get so tired of the "military grade" response to the fact that there is no such classification as "assualt weapon". The term "miltary grade" was the first "assault weapon". Seeing as there is no true definition of "miltary grade" the gov defined as destructive devices (bombs, grenades), machine guns, SBR's, silencers (although silencers are far more practical in sporting/hunting situations than military).

No all of a sudden, semi-autos dressed up to look like their big brothers are military grade? Why doesn't our miltary use them then? Well they look alike, so they must be right?

OP, you want an answer to actually give you a reason for keeping semi-autos or one that supports your position? Truth is you know nothing about guns if you think semi-auto is only designed for military apps or "killing". Heck even a sling-shot is designed for killing, doesn't make it "military grade". And, the Ruger 10/22 semi-auto rifle in circ, yet I fail to see the "military grade" to that weapon. And, I challenge to live amongst wolves/coyotes/foxes/wildpig/angry javalina/etc and defend against them with a single shot rifle.

These rifles should not be banned because not infringed means just that. Without a constitutional convention to amend . . . our right can not be legislated against. Now you can make the point that the gov has already outlawed certain arms, so we have seemed to have already given up this right. You would be right and that is why we should fight to preserve what is left.

Everybody keeps pointing to England as a model, yet they don't even have a right to free speech. They have a culture of servitude, IHMS. Not the country I want the US to emulate on the rights of their citizens.

Woh woh, hold on now.. I know little about the mechanics and classification of firearms, but you are blurring the lines by inferring a semi-auto is any less dangerous than a fully auto.

The point is to stop one man from gunning down crowds of people, why do YOU as a private citizen need that right to stop crowds?

I am not on any sides but you and people like you make it very hard to not pick sides out of passion, not attacking you but i would appreciate if you dropped the condescending way of making your point.

Originally posted by SpaDe_

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

Well, enjoy the "facts" just dished out by your fantastic President.

Tough luck buddy.

My President just did a whole lot of nothing today. The FACT is the President said sorry anti gun crowd there isn't a thing I can do. He left it up to Congress, which is funny because the Senate majority leader who happens to be a Democrat stated that he doesn't even have the votes to pass any anti gun legislation.

Looks like the rabid anti gun crowd loses on this one.

Not to mention the fact that Democrats are going to spin the "facts" in favor of their agenda.
Same goes with the Repubs.......

That's what I can't stand about politicians.
They put a spin on every thing and to hell with the truth.
That's why the public is called "sheeple" because most believe any thing that is told to them by TPTB.

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by T4NG0

 

Average gun exchange happens within 10ft of each other and last five seconds. In those five seconds, five shots are fired on average with 1 bullets striking. That's 20%. With a ten round mag, that's 2 hits over 10 seconds.

Here's hoping you hit the CNS!

You are right, and I agree with you. Which is why I said one does not always do the job. I would think you can get a higher hit percentage than that though at ten feet, if you are aiming at center mass..

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMike
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...

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

Assault weapon is a political term and pretty meaningless one I agree. It seems to me that the discussion is about firepower, semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines really. Is a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine more dangerous than a bolt action rifle?

More of my freedom and rights would be stripped away. But more than that...

CRIMINALS don't OBEY laws.

Passing laws and making things illegal never stopped anything.

Gangs already have assault weapons. Do you think passing laws will make that BETTER? No. It'll make it worse. I see a whole new black market opening up.

The CIA will be *SO* happy.

Plus, once the gangs are more armed than the rest of us, that leaves us ALL more vulnerable to them, too.

Drugs are illegal, but look how many people are hooked on them...

Get what I'm trying to say?

It's not like they are banning them across the board for military and everything. It's not like they'll stop manufacturing these weapons...

And I'm here to tell you, as long as they make them, criminals, or anyone else so inclined, will be able to obtain them.

Law abiding citizens in the US won't stand a chance between the criminals and military. How many innocents will be killed in that battle?

And you thought drive-by shootings between rival gangs were bad? Just wait.

reply to post by cripmeister


Depends how many you can squeez off in the time it takes for him to run

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89

Originally posted by VoidHawk
To say they want to take away only the rifles kinda proves why they want to take them away!!
Be it an assault rifle or a hand gun, they BOTH kill.
The only reason they want to take away the assault rifle is because a nation armed with such weapons is a nation thats hard to contol, because if they need to they can defend themselves.

In the uk we're NOT ALLOWED to have them, and look where its gotten us!!! The criminals have guns, the police have guns, and even though the man in the street cant have one, it IS the man in the street thats killed by them.

I hear this point often and thanks for the input. I am very interested in hearing more opinions from you foreign folks who aren't allowed to have guns, please speak up!

Do you wish you had guns?

if not then why?

Canadian here.
While I can get handguns here, I have no desire to. In my opinion, there is no reason to have a handgun other than to kill another man.

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89

Back to the topic, So how do guns define free speech?

According to them the rule is simple:
The smaller the brain the bigger the gun, the more ammo hold in the clip and the more valid their speech. because after all opposong voice have been shot dead, the only FREE speech is his ...

Simple, isn't it?

Originally posted by Tha Girl They Call Roc
More of my freedom and rights would be stripped away. But more than that...

CRIMINALS don't OBEY laws.

Passing laws and making things illegal never stopped anything.

Gangs already have assault weapons. Do you think passing laws will make that BETTER? No. It'll make it worse. I see a whole new black market opening up.

The CIA will be *SO* happy.

Plus, once the gangs are more armed than the rest of us, that leaves us ALL more vulnerable to them, too.

Drugs are illegal, but look how many people are hooked on them...

Get what I'm trying to say?

It's not like they are banning them across the board for military and everything. It's not like they'll stop manufacturing these weapons...

And I'm here to tell you, as long as they make them, criminals, or anyone else so inclined, will be able to obtain them.

Law abiding citizens in the US won't stand a chance between the criminals and military. How many innocents will be killed in that battle?

And you thought drive-by shootings between rival gangs were bad? Just wait.

Excellent point and thank you for the input, you feel the laws wont gain any ground when it comes to criminals and that the government would only be putting more innocent civilians at risk by enforcing these laws. Completely valid when you look at our current justice system.

So what can be done to limit mass murders without giving the criminal element an advantage?

Originally posted by nixie_nox
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.

Just out of curiosity, why do people have to call gun owners names like "gun nuts"? Or "gun freaks"?
Why the name calling?

And no,I don't own a gun but I am for the rights of others.
Which happens to include the right to bear arms.

I understand people disliking guns but I also have to respect the view of others that are for guns.
And the people I know who own a gun are NOT nuts or crazy or freaks.....
They are just normal hard working people like the rest of us. And no, they don't boast about having guns.

I am a former corrections officer who spent most of my time dealing with prominent gangs. It's a job that comes with understood risk, but what most people don't realize is that risk follows you home. If any of the threats I received from gang members ever come to fruition, I will be outgunned. Perhaps most of you can't understand what it's like to live knowing there are people who want you dead at any cost. ...threats that made enough noise to warrant attention from the U.S. Marshall's service. Welcome to my life. A life where carrying a gun is not an option. I refuse to let anyone give any criminal an advantage over me. The Constitution grants me the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I can't think of anything that infringes on my rights more than putting my life even more at risk.

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89

Originally posted by VoidHawk
To say they want to take away only the rifles kinda proves why they want to take them away!!
Be it an assault rifle or a hand gun, they BOTH kill.
The only reason they want to take away the assault rifle is because a nation armed with such weapons is a nation thats hard to contol, because if they need to they can defend themselves.

In the uk we're NOT ALLOWED to have them, and look where its gotten us!!! The criminals have guns, the police have guns, and even though the man in the street cant have one, it IS the man in the street thats killed by them.

I hear this point often and thanks for the input. I am very interested in hearing more opinions from you foreign folks who aren't allowed to have guns, please speak up!

Do you wish you had guns?

if not then why?

Canadian here.
While I can get handguns here, I have no desire to. In my opinion, there is no reason to have a handgun other than to kill another man.

Nice! So luckily there has never ever been a need where you live?

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89

Originally posted by VoidHawk
To say they want to take away only the rifles kinda proves why they want to take them away!!
Be it an assault rifle or a hand gun, they BOTH kill.
The only reason they want to take away the assault rifle is because a nation armed with such weapons is a nation thats hard to contol, because if they need to they can defend themselves.

In the uk we're NOT ALLOWED to have them, and look where its gotten us!!! The criminals have guns, the police have guns, and even though the man in the street cant have one, it IS the man in the street thats killed by them.

I hear this point often and thanks for the input. I am very interested in hearing more opinions from you foreign folks who aren't allowed to have guns, please speak up!

Do you wish you had guns?

if not then why?

Canadian here.
While I can get handguns here, I have no desire to. In my opinion, there is no reason to have a handgun other than to kill another man.

Well yeah, that is typically what guns are made to do, and used to do, it is the context in which a man uses it to kill. Unarmed good guy with no cops around to protect him gets killed? BAD! Criminal gets killed trying to rob, or murder men, women, and children? It still sucks someone had to lose a life in this kind of scenario, but it unfortunately had to be done. The victim did not leave the house, or go to sleep thinking someone was going to try and kill him that night. He didn't want to kill anyone, because that is sick, and is why someone is no longer breathing. The someone who tried to harm innocent, law abiding citizens.