Should U.S. Citizens be allowed to own assault rifles? (poll)

[Farley1324]

Why would I need a semi automatic rifle when I have a handgun?

Because it is superior at stopping your attacker(s)

because it's a more efficient defense tool....

Exactly.

Nice looking firearms sir. I would hate to have to try and find replacement ammo right now though.

That's the rub.

If I am being mugged or someone is at my door trying to break in? I am talking practical realistic situations here for civilians.

Mugged? Handgun.

Breaking into your home? Rifle.

derp

[Poppy83]

Switch mags. And how often does such a situation happen?

How often does a "mass" shooting happen? I'm thinking it happens a whole lot less than home invasions and other violent break-ins.

[Farley1324]

So can raising your handgun from the low ready position.

Correct.

[fFozzie]

www.assaultweapon.info
www.assaultweapon.info
www.assaultweapon.info
www.assaultweapon.info


Educate yourselves, seriously. You are being sheep, lead on by lies that you eat up so readily. It's astounding, really.

[Spartan5364]

So can raising your rifle from the low ready position.

raising your rifle takes now as long as changing a mag?
you can't be serious

[Jeffreezy]

liberals don't care about people getting killed.
These gun laws are just a knee jerk reaction to the loonies who go shooting up places.

They're just feel good crimes that would do nothing to reduce crime and stop mass shootings.

[SilverSpork]

liberals don't care about people getting killed.
These gun laws are just a knee jerk reaction to the loonies who go shooting up places.

Exactly. Banning firearms in any form is akin to putting a bandaid over a gaping wound. It's not going to solve any problems.

Ok, NOW, I am out.

**** Obama.

K, really now.

[Farley1324]

How often does a "mass" shooting happen? I'm thinking it happens a whole lot less than home invasions and other violent break-ins.

How many "gun free" criminal empowerment zones are there?

[Twist3dJok3r]

If someone is breaking into my house, then a more effective threat-stopping machine is what I want to have. I think you answered your own question, but you are too concerned with your sensationalist language and love for Obama to be reasoned with.

I am right on the political spectrum. A burglary would be just as effectively stopped with a shotgun or a hangun.

Looks fake, almost a xerox copy of AWCA. I believe a proposed ban would be more extensive, highly doubt it would pass though (thank goodness).

Does anyone have the proposal? I can't find it.

[Jeffreezy]

So can raising your rifle from the low ready position.



Links to stories?

No news stories, No-one hurt. I recall one incident however, where the occupants were held at gunpoint and the other criminals walked out with their stuff. People usually aren't hurt in Home Invasions, but why leave your safety in the hands of criminal(s)?

[Spartan5364]

I am right on the political spectrum. A burglary would be just as effectively stopped with a shotgun or a hangun.



Does anyone have the proposal? I can't find it.

I give up

[Poppy83]

I am right on the political spectrum. A burglary would be just as effectively stopped with a shotgun or a hangun.

No. You're wrong again.

[Farley1324]

I am right on the political spectrum. A burglary would be just as effectively stopped with a shotgun or a hangun.

Maybe. Maybe not. Well, in the case of the shotgun. In the case of the handgun...most likely not.

But you don't get to decide which firearm I use to defend myself and my family.

Deal with it.

[Twist3dJok3r]

www.assaultweapon.info
www.assaultweapon.info
www.assaultweapon.info
www.assaultweapon.info


Educate yourselves, seriously. You are being sheep, lead on by lies that you eat up so readily. It's astounding, really.

I clicked through it. Does a semi-automatic rifle, say in the form of an AR-15, have a greater ability to kill multiple people with greater efficiency and effectiveness than a hangun?

[Farley1324]

I clicked through it. Does a semi-automatic rifle, say in the form of an AR-15, have a greater ability to kill multiple people with greater efficiency and effectiveness than a hangun?

Yes. It does.

And that is exactly why we have them and why the are a Constitutionally Protected Right.

Maybe you can tell us what the Second Amendment is for, and WHY it protects our Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

We're listening.

[fFozzie]

Gun culture has always been a part of American culture, therefore there are A LOT of guns all over America. They ARE NOT going away. Comparing the banning of guns in a country where there are millions of guns around to the banning of guns in America is completely unrealistic.

Also, America has always had a different outlook on 'freedom' than the rest of the world. American freedom is based on liberty/individual freedoms and not ease of life/safety. Ie: (traditionally) in America it is far more important to maintain individual rights and liberties (ie: the right to bear arms/self defense) than it is to deny these freedoms in favor of theoretical safety. This is also apparent in our traditional disdain for socialism as well; we do not place a large value on comfort/ease of life if it involves hand holding. That is a topic for another time; but it's all related.

NOW I am not saying which is superior to the other; just that perhaps you can step back and view things from an 'American' viewpoint sometimes. We are a very, very different country than the rest. Some of us love it that way; some of us want to move more towards a European sense of safety/freedom balance. It's up to the individual's opinion of course.

And of course there is always the point that the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting; it's a form of checks/balances on our own Government. I understand that it is very, very far-fetched that we will ever have to have an 'uprising' against our own government; but it is not impossible and the 2nd Amendment has been used in this way during 'modern' times ( examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...ens_%281946%29 ).

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"The land of the free, the home of the brave."



We aren't addicted to guns, we are addicted to liberty. Guns, being as controversial and 'extreme' as they are are a PERFECT example of what sets us apart from literally EVERYONE else. Lovers of liberty cling to their guns because they are a symbol of just how free we are; we are allowed to have something that is considered so controversial, so 'deadly', so 'wrong', so 'scary', etc. etc by the rest of the world. And we have been allowed to do so by our own Constitution since the founding of our beautiful country; and no one is going to change that.

Firearms are the perfect symbol of freedom. It's easy to grant people certain freedoms; granting them the freedom of essentially rebellion is not easy.


It really comes down to this:

Anti-gun people want to make America a safer place; this being their idea of freedom.

Pro-gun people don't want to sacrifice certain liberties in order to make America (maybe) a bit safer (and most of them don't think it will do that anyways, myself included).

So no one will ever agree.

It comes down to this, as a pro-gun sort of fellow:

If you were a magical wizard from the land of Oz that could somehow ACTUALLY guarantee that there would be 100% less violence in America if we banned all guns; I would still tell you I don't want that. Freedom is more important.

Anti-gun arguments are the same as Christian arguments that are based in the Bible ("It's in the bible; therefore it is correct.") if I don't BELIEVE in the Bible in the first place; the argument is useless. If I don't BELIEVE in safety-above-all; your arguments are useless to me as far as gun-control goes.

[Twist3dJok3r]

Maybe. Maybe not. Well, in the case of the shotgun. In the case of the handgun...most likely not.

But you don't get to decide which firearm I use to defend myself and my family.

Deal with it.

Have you ever had to defend yourself and your family against an attack?

[Jeffreezy]

I am right on the political spectrum. A burglary would be just as effectively stopped with a shotgun or a hangun.



Does anyone have the proposal? I can't find it.

We'ere not saying a Handgun or Shotgun is ineffective, we're saying an AR15 is even MORE effective.

Your question is basically: Why do you need a weapon more effective than a handgun or shotgun for home defense?

The answer is: Because the law allows it.

[w00tasaurus]

about the rosa parks picture..

the people who think this picture makes a good point or otherwise think fighting for gun rights is comparable to the fight for racial equality are the same people who would have expected Rosa Parks to give up her seat for them, if they lived at that time.

you know it's true.

[Farley1324]

We'ere not saying a Handgun or Shotgun is ineffective, we're saying an AR15 is even MORE effective.

Your question is basically: Why do you need a weapon more effective than a handgun or shotgun for home defense?

The answer is: Because the law allows it.

I would add: Because it is a basic human right, regardless of what those currently in power codify into law.

[Twist3dJok3r]

Yes. It does.

And that is exactly why we have them and why the are a Constitutionally Protected Right.

Ok. Now why would you need it other than recreational usage and home defense?

[Farley1324]

Ok. Now why would you need it other than recreational usage and home defense?

Just so we are clear, you are accepting that a semi automatic rifle is a good, practical, useful choice for home defense, correct?

[fFozzie]

about the rosa parks picture..

the people who think this picture makes a good point or otherwise think fighting for gun rights is comparable to the fight for racial equality are the same people who would have expected Rosa Parks to give up her seat for them, if they lived at that time.

you know it's true.

You are a presumptuous idiot, apparently. Why in the hell would black people for instance want Rosa Parks to give up her seat? That makes zero sense.

[oumoklaklak]

I'm sincerely hoping for Americans' sake that American gun laws don't degenerate into the same kind of laws that we have in Canada, where AR-15s are restricted simply because they make well-sheltered nanny suburbanites shriek in horror, and where AK-47s are completely prohibited for the same reason.

(Restricted basically means that the firearm needs to be registered, the owner needs to be a member of a shooting club, and a transport permit is required to bring the firearm absolutely anywhere. If your membership expires and you fail to renew it within a month or so whilst still being in possession of the restricted firearm, you are automatically a criminal.)

[Farley1324]

You are a presumptuous idiot, apparently.

Some people like to project

[Twist3dJok3r]

We'ere not saying a Handgun or Shotgun is ineffective, we're saying an AR15 is even MORE effective.

Your question is basically: Why do you need a weapon more effective than a handgun or shotgun for home defense?

The answer is: Because the law allows it.

I understand. It is more effective as a killing agent. As such, why should we place a more effective killing agent into the hands of civilians when they can defend themselves just as easily in practical situations with a handgun?

The law allows a lot of things that not just. Hence why we have the legislative branch to propose and amend.

[Jeffreezy]

about the rosa parks picture..

the people who think this picture makes a good point or otherwise think fighting for gun rights is comparable to the fight for racial equality are the same people who would have expected Rosa Parks to give up her seat for them, if they lived at that time.

you know it's true.

Strong assumptions, some of the first gun laws in this country were racist laws that tried to bar freedmen the use of arms.

I guess you didn't see the picture of the Black Panthers on the California Capitol with rifles and shotguns. Or the picture of Malcolm X with a M1 Carbine.

[EQUlLIBRIUM]

Have you ever had to defend yourself and your family against an attack?

Not really any of your business, now is it.

[Farley1324]

I understand. It is more effective as a killing agent. As such, why should we place a more effective killing agent into the hands of civilians when they can defend themselves just as easily in practical situations with a handgun?

The law allows a lot of things that not just. Hence why we have the legislative branch to propose and amend.

Somebody ban this troll?

[Jeffreezy]

I understand. It is more effective as a killing agent. As such, why should we place a more effective killing agent into the hands of civilians when they can defend themselves just as easily in practical situations with a handgun?

The law allows a lot of things that not just. Hence why we have the legislative branch to propose and amend.

Burden of proof is on the accuser, they're legal already. The question is WHY they should be banned, NOT why should they remain legal. I already mentioned twice in this thread, the two deadliest mass shootings were committed with a hunting rifle and two handguns, so what's the good in banning so called "assault weapons"?