View Poll Results: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, because...

    6 11.11%
  • No, because...

    46 85.19%
  • Other

    2 3.70%
Page 21 of 32 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 313

Thread: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

  1. #201
    Tavern Bartender
    #neverhillary
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    68,027

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    so is this:





    marlin 60 .22lr rifle.
    That should definitely be banned. You'll shoot your eye out kid.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)

  2. #202
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    So... is a machinegun not an "automatic assault weapons"?
    A machine gun is known as a machine gun, it uses a belt to feed the ammunition and has a signifigantly larger range than assault rifles, which typically uses shorter load ammunition and a simple spring to create the auto effect.
    What do you think I have been arguing all this time anyway?!? I support keeping the law as it is because "automatic assault weapons" have been illegal since 1982.
    1986, and there have only been 2 murders committed with a fully automatic weapon.

    Machineguns are used in many crimes illegally,
    That is not true
    and if they were to become legal, then I would suspect that more people would get a hold of them.
    How do you theorize that, they aren't exactly effective for a surprise attack due to their size, criminals rely on the advantage of surprise.
    The price would go down for them, so more of them would be bought.
    see my prior point.
    I don't believe citizens don't use machineguns anyway to defend themselves, so whats the use of making them legal?
    My rights are not dependent on my needs, that invalidates your point completely, secondly, how does one know his house won't be under a blitzkrieg, that is, more than one invader.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  3. #203
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shewter View Post
    They are not illegal. They are just well-regulated. As they should be.

    And to your final question. Citizens don't have to use S.U.V.'s to commute to work, what's the use in making them period? The list goes on and on.

    The fact is, fully automatic weapons are not illegal, they are attainable, they are possessed by citizens who have gone through the FFL3 process and paid their tax stamp. There is no reason to suggest that these weapons make life any more dangerous than any other potential weapon today.

    The price doesnt matter seeing how if you wanted to get one illegally you can. And you don't pay the same price as a law abiding citzen would.

    Is this making any sense? I sure hope so.
    ? What does the SUV example have to do with anything? Cars make easy for people to go places, and all of them are very simillar, so they should all be legal.

    and i don't consider it a "right" for someone to have a gun. (but the second amendment makes it a right)

    so since it isn't a right, I base my views on what is practical. I need to look at charts of the lethality of guns. the problem is that I couldn't find it, and it only seemed to exist for bullets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No. It is not. It is a machinegun or an assault rifle or a submachine gun, but it is NOT an 'assault weapon'.


    1: There is no such things as an 'automatic assault weapon'
    2: Machineguns are not illegal. I know several people that own them, and a quick search will find several dealers of same.
    machine guns for sale - Google Search


    Your suspicions are, obviously, wrong.
    Yeah, im going to have to look up how dangerous certain weapons are so I can draw the line somewhere about where I think the weapons should be illegal (if there was no second amendment). thats for the info on machineguns.


    I thought that it was understood that illegal high lethal rating weapons are used in violent crimes. Since those crime rates are low compared to handguns, I think that regulations restricting ownership of those guns seems to work.
    Last edited by nerv14; 05-04-09 at 03:35 PM.

  4. #204
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    ? What does the SUV example have to do with anything? Cars make easy for people to go places, and all of them are very simillar, so they should all be legal.
    Not all cars are similar, in fact they have more differences than guns, such as horsepower differences, cornering, acceleration, torque, weight(important in an accident), etc. The point is that my rights aren't based on my needs.

    and i don't consider it a "right" for someone to have a gun. (but the second amendment makes it a right)
    We don't care what you consider a right, and neither did the founding fathers, which is why the second amendment exists to keep those who would violate the naturally ocurring right to self defense by limiting our options in weapons.




    Yeah, im going to have to look up how dangerous certain weapons are so I can draw the line somewhere about where I think the weapons should be illegal (if there was no second amendment). thats for the info on machineguns.
    Why would you want to limit people's rights? Do you have a compelling reason that does not violate the necessary and proper test?

    I thought that it was understood that illegal high lethal rating weapons are used in violent crimes. Since those crime rates are low compared to handguns, I think that regulations restricting ownership of those guns seems to work.
    False, you are incorrectly assigning results to the law, machine guns were legal in the eighteen hundreds(Gatling gun) and the murder rate is still less than 10 people by legally owned machine guns.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #205
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    [quote=LaMidRighter;1058010768]
    Not all cars are similar, in fact they have more differences than guns, such as horsepower differences, cornering, acceleration, torque, weight(important in an accident), etc. The point is that my rights aren't based on my needs.

    We don't care what you consider a right, and neither did the founding fathers, which is why the second amendment exists to keep those who would violate the naturally ocurring right to self defense by limiting our options in weapons.




    Why would you want to limit people's rights? Do you have a compelling reason that does not violate the necessary and proper test?

    False, you are incorrectly assigning results to the law, machine guns were legal in the eighteen hundreds(Gatling gun) and the murder rate is still less than 10 people by legally owned machine guns.
    Once again, I dont personally consider gun choice to be a right, so what you are saying about that doesn't really mean much to me.

    and we need to take into account that crime rates have gone up all over the world naturely, and not just because of gun restrictions.

    and of course gatling guns don't kill many people :P they are f-ing huge.

  6. #206
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    [quote][QUOTE=nerv14;1058010774]
    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post

    Once again, I dont personally consider gun choice to be a right, so what you are saying about that doesn't really mean much to me.
    Once again our rights don't depend on your personal feelings about them, but your opinion is of concern to me because you have a vote and are apparantly more than happy to surrender my rights to make yourself feel safer.

    and we need to take into account that crime rates have gone up all over the world naturely, and not just because of gun restrictions.
    Crime rates go up when people are easier targets, gun control countries see the statistically largest increases in crime.

    and of course gatling guns don't kill many people :P they are f-ing huge.
    ?????????
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #207
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,475

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    [quote=nerv14;1058010774]
    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post

    Once again, I dont personally consider gun choice to be a right, so what you are saying about that doesn't really mean much to me.

    and we need to take into account that crime rates have gone up all over the world naturely, and not just because of gun restrictions.

    and of course gatling guns don't kill many people :P they are f-ing huge.

    Nerv14...this is going to sound like a personal attack on the surface, but I don't mean it that way.

    To all available evidence you are extremely (one is tempted to say utterly) ignorant on all aspects of firearms, both the technical, the practical, the political, the criminology (use of, deterrence effect, and defensive use), and the historical.

    Yet, you esteem your own personal opinion on firearms so highly you place it above the Founders and the Constitution.

    An apt comparison, would be if I wanted to regulate and oversee all brain surgery in the USA, determining what proceedures were necessary and desireable, which would be covered under insurance and which wouldn't, etc...when I am not an M.D. and know virtually nothing about brain surgery.

    To be perfectly honest, having such a strong opinion on a subject, upon which your lack of knowlege seems all but infinite, is quite incredible (and not in a good way).

    I suggest you return to square 1: discard all your opinions first, then proceed to get educated on the subject. Learn the difference between a Remington 700, an AR15, a SAW and a HMG. Read several books on the subject, written from both pro- and anti- positions. Study the statistics, from multiple sources... the Kleck study may prove very intresting, when you realize that every study on the subject reveals that guns are used many times more often to prevent crimes than in any sort of homicide. Go to a range that rents out firearms and shoot a few...I'd suggest starting with a 22 rifle and working up to Glocks and AR's.

    Visit a gun store several times and talk to the people there. Get some direct personal knowlege about people who own guns instead of what the news media says.

    Finally, take a walk after dark through the worst part of a major city... and ask yourself if you wouldn't feel better if you were armed.

    Then your opinion will have something behind it, rather than being based on a near-total lack of understanding.

    Again, I apologize if this seemed like a personal attack, it isn't intended as such... but I simply could not go on without pointing out how unwise it is to have such an extreme opinion on a subject of which you appear to know nothing.

    G.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  8. #208
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    [quote=Goshin;1058010832]
    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post


    Nerv14...this is going to sound like a personal attack on the surface, but I don't mean it that way.

    To all available evidence you are extremely (one is tempted to say utterly) ignorant on all aspects of firearms, both the technical, the practical, the political, the criminology (use of, deterrence effect, and defensive use), and the historical.

    Yet, you esteem your own personal opinion on firearms so highly you place it above the Founders and the Constitution.

    An apt comparison, would be if I wanted to regulate and oversee all brain surgery in the USA, determining what proceedures were necessary and desireable, which would be covered under insurance and which wouldn't, etc...when I am not an M.D. and know virtually nothing about brain surgery.

    To be perfectly honest, having such a strong opinion on a subject, upon which your lack of knowlege seems all but infinite, is quite incredible (and not in a good way).

    I suggest you return to square 1: discard all your opinions first, then proceed to get educated on the subject. Learn the difference between a Remington 700, an AR15, a SAW and a HMG. Read several books on the subject, written from both pro- and anti- positions. Study the statistics, from multiple sources... the Kleck study may prove very intresting, when you realize that every study on the subject reveals that guns are used many times more often to prevent crimes than in any sort of homicide. Go to a range that rents out firearms and shoot a few...I'd suggest starting with a 22 rifle and working up to Glocks and AR's.

    Visit a gun store several times and talk to the people there. Get some direct personal knowlege about people who own guns instead of what the news media says.

    Finally, take a walk after dark through the worst part of a major city... and ask yourself if you wouldn't feel better if you were armed.

    Then your opinion will have something behind it, rather than being based on a near-total lack of understanding.

    Again, I apologize if this seemed like a personal attack, it isn't intended as such... but I simply could not go on without pointing out how unwise it is to have such an extreme opinion on a subject of which you appear to know nothing.

    G.
    Its fine, but you should look at my last post. I said I need to look at how dangerous certain firearms are.

    I do understand that people would want a handgun to protect themselves. This is why I am fine with people owning handguns.

  9. #209
    Professor
    Shewter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Puget Sound
    Last Seen
    02-21-13 @ 08:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,995

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I thought that it was understood that illegal high lethal rating weapons are used in violent crimes. Since those crime rates are low compared to handguns, I think that regulations restricting ownership of those guns seems to work.
    "illegal high lethal rating weapons" do not exist. There are only legal and illegal weapons.

    As far as firearms are concerned, you can achieve the same lethality with a bolt action rifle as you could a fully automatic rifle.

    Your biggest issue is that you seem to think that just because something is unnecessary no one should be able to own it. That's why I brought up the SUV point. It is not necessary to have a larger than life vehicle such as an SUV when one could use a minivan for the same purpose. A firearm is the same in that you could accomplish all of your goals with many interchangeable firearms, none of them are completely necessary in this day and age, but our rights do not depend on necessity. That includes our right to keep and bear arms.

    Now, if you can show me positive statistics where fully automatic weapons being removed from an area (from law abiding citizens) reduced crime, I would love to see that.

    I'll give you an example of a place where fully automatic weapons do NOT effect the crime rate. Oregon. It is an FFL3 state. I suppose people there are afraid that the person next door with a fully automatic Uzi is going to annihilate their family before they can pick up a gun? Or are they no more concerned with that than the neighborhood crazy old man with a shotgun breaking down their door and throwing buckshot at them?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Don't apologize to me over that silly ****. I could care less if I can see the dust or not.
    Now apologize for apologizing!

  10. #210
    Professor
    Shewter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Puget Sound
    Last Seen
    02-21-13 @ 08:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,995

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post

    Its fine, but you should look at my last post. I said I need to look at how dangerous certain firearms are.
    You're going about it wrong already. A firearm does nothing by itself without the projectile and human intent and operation.

    One bullet can and will kill. Likewise some people are shot multiple times and survive. This all comes down to the bullet and the shooter, not so much the weapon itself.

    For example, a person shot with a fully metal jacketed bullet that penetrates them completely is more than likely to survive (that is if no vital organs are penetrated or destroyed) yet a person shot with a hollow point or non jacketed bullet is likely to die even if he/she survives the initial shooting. The lead poisoning will get to them eventually.

    Also, someone shot with a forward tumbling round is likely to be critically injured whereas someone shot with a non tumbling bullet has a better chance of complete piercing.

    Someone shot with a smaller caliber faster moving round is likely to keep moving where someone shot with a larger caliber and slower moving bullet is likely to spasm if not be completely knocked off their feet.

    I do understand that people would want a handgun to protect themselves. This is why I am fine with people owning handguns.
    What do you say to sport shooters, hunters, collector, and various other weapon owners when their guns are now banned? "Sorry, but I don't like the fact that you own XXXXXX"?
    Last edited by Shewter; 05-04-09 at 05:02 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Don't apologize to me over that silly ****. I could care less if I can see the dust or not.
    Now apologize for apologizing!

Page 21 of 32 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •