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

[Spartan5364]

Somebody ban this troll?

I'll sign the petition

[Twist3dJok3r]

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

No. My error. Answering a few replies to my posts at once. Let me rephrase. In what practical situation would you need a semi automatic rifle as opposed to a handgun? I should think that in the case of a home invasion, mugging, what have you, a handgun is just as if not more appropriate for the typical self defense situation.

[Jeffreezy]

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

Two reasons are more than enough, especially the latter, which usually involves defense of your life and the lives of your loved ones.

[MexNazi]

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.

It is more effective at stopping the threat. Many times people keep on attacking after being shot, specially with low kinetic energy rounds like those in handguns. The only reason people carry handguns is merely for concealability. General rule is, you use your handgun to get to you rifle.

[Twist3dJok3r]

Somebody ban this troll?

I am not trolling. I'm trying to understand your perspective. Hence why I am asking so many questions.

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"?

I believed semi automatic rifles should be banned because they provide a more efficient means of killing human beings. I feel in most practical situations a hand gun is a perfectly appropriate weapon to ward off any potential assault. I believe the greater good will be served with less guns on the market for anyone.

[Farley1324]

I am not trolling. I'm trying to understand your perspective. Hence why I am asking so many questions.

You refuse the answers and then keep repeating the same incorrect bullshit.

Why are you still telling us a handgun stops an attacker as reliably as a rifle?

Are you trolling, or are you that stupid?

[Jeffreezy]

No. My error. Answering a few replies to my posts at once. Let me rephrase. In what practical situation would you need a semi automatic rifle as opposed to a handgun? I should think that in the case of a home invasion, mugging, what have you, a handgun is just as if not more appropriate for the typical self defense situation.

In the same situations I would want a handgun rather than a fork... You see where i'm getting at? They are the more effective tool, plain and simple.

[sbsponger]

No. My error. Answering a few replies to my posts at once. Let me rephrase. In what practical situation would you need a semi automatic rifle as opposed to a handgun? I should think that in the case of a home invasion, mugging, what have you, a handgun is just as if not more appropriate for the typical self defense situation.

in home defense a rifle is more powerful and more accurate than a handgun

[Farley1324]

I believed semi automatic rifles should be banned because they provide a more efficient means of killing human beings.

Well that's just too bad.

Have you looked into the Second Amendment yet?

[BrbBowflexing]

I am not trolling. I'm trying to understand your perspective. Hence why I am asking so many questions.



I believed semi automatic rifles should be banned because they provide a more efficient means of killing human beings. I feel in most practical situations a hand gun is a perfectly appropriate weapon to ward off any potential assault. I believe the greater good will be served with less guns on the market for anyone.

The majority of handguns are semi automatic. The action of a weapon has no point in your argument. One pull of the trigger equals one round fired. Handguns not only kill more people but are arguably more dangerous. Why attack a specific rifle?

[Twist3dJok3r]

Well that's just too bad.

Have you looked into the Second Amendment yet?

Yes, quite extensively. Have you looked at the year it was written and the context of the times?

[Jeffreezy]

I am not trolling. I'm trying to understand your perspective. Hence why I am asking so many questions.



I believed semi automatic rifles should be banned because they provide a more efficient means of killing human beings. I feel in most practical situations a hand gun is a perfectly appropriate weapon to ward off any potential assault. I believe the greater good will be served with less guns on the market for anyone.

They ARE more effective, no question. But in the circumstances such as those in the last few mass shootings, are they that much more effective at killing unarmed,unarmored,civilians to justify a ban on a class of weapons? It's already been proven (I don't know many more times i have to say this) that hunting rifles and handguns can be just as effective as "assault weapons" when it comes to gunning down unarmed people.

[Twist3dJok3r]

The majority of handguns are semi automatic. The action of a weapon has no point in your argument. One pull of the trigger equals one round fired. Handguns not only kill more people but are arguably more dangerous. Why attack a specific rifle?

If I take your argument as you pose it, why would I need a rifle when a handgun has the same function (I understand they dont have the same function, I am just addressing your comment the way it was phrased)

[nm1891]

Granted there are few "practical" reasons to own a AR outside of recreation, but give the government an inch and whose to say they dont take a mile? The more you let the government dictate what you do and dont need the closer you move to totalitarianism.

[Twist3dJok3r]

You are a stupid ******* who doesn't know what he's talking about. No offense. Forget your Hollywood bullsh!t. The only way I would abandon my rifle and reach for my handgun (close quarter combat or not), is when my gun jams or I don't have time to reload.. in which case I'm pretty much about to die anyway.

That has nothing to do with my argument.

[Farley1324]

The majority of handguns are semi automatic. The action of a weapon has no point in your argument. One pull of the trigger equals one round fired. Handguns not only kill more people but are arguably more dangerous. Why attack a specific rifle?

323 with rifles...probably 6,000 with handguns.

(murders)

Yes, quite extensively. Have you looked at the year it was written and the context of the times?

Sure have. Which is how I know it covers semi automatic rifles.

[Poppy83]

No. My error. Answering a few replies to my posts at once. Let me rephrase. In what practical situation would you need a semi automatic rifle as opposed to a handgun? I should think that in the case of a home invasion, mugging, what have you, a handgun is just as if not more appropriate for the typical self defense situation.

You must not shoot very often. It is much easier to control a weapon with a stock as opposed to a handgun.

You're arguing for neutering someone's ability to defend themselves. I'll say, "Just hush, now", but you're a lost cause.

[Farley1324]

That has nothing to do with my argument.

A rifle being more effective for defense than a handgun has nothing to do with your tro...I mean argument? lulz

[BrbBowflexing]

If I take your argument as you pose it, why would I need a rifle when a handgun has the same function (I understand they dont have the same function, I am just addressing your comment the way it was phrased)

Why not? The issue here is BANNING a weapon. Why? Who cares what I want or need a rifle for, why do YOU want to ban it?

[Spartan5364]

If I take your argument as you pose it, why would I need a rifle when a handgun has the same function (I understand they dont have the same function, I am just addressing your comment the way it was phrased)

brb a rifle is too deadly to be in civilian hands so ban it
then
brb i guess if a handgun can kill as efficiently as a rifle than why need a rifle? ban it...

cool logic you got there bro

[Twist3dJok3r]

Sure have. Which is how I know it covers semi automatic rifles.

So you understand we have amendments in order to bring the constitution around to modern reason....

[Farley1324]

So you understand we have amendments in order to bring the constitution around to modern reason....

Tell me more about the Amendment that supercedes the Second Amendment.

[hutch1999]

Yes, quite extensively. Have you looked at the year it was written and the context of the times?

Lulz ohlawd.jpeg

I gave you a good chance before sending a red box your way(on recharge), but this comment is the one to do it.

This was the type of mainstream brainwashed comment I was expecting to hear.

Claiming the 2A doesn't cover ARs because of the time period would be the same as saying 1A doesn't cover the internet, TV, or radio because of the time period.

Lol at you thinking the founding fathers had no idea technology would advance.

Ben Franklin was one of the greatest American minds ever, he knew that advances in technology would happen.

Not negged for anti-gun posts, negged for disrespecting the founding fathers.

[Mavj96]

Ar-15s aren't assault rifles, that being said yes we should.

Our guns are not for ****ing hunting or self defense as media would have you think, only some 200 years back our distant relatives fought for many of the rights we have today such as the right to form a militia as a citizen and balance the scale. It's not about personal use it's about keeping the gov't check in the last way possible.

You have the freedoms you do for a reason, sure some things are outdated in our constitution but the possibility of an oppressive government is still VERY real.

[Jeffreezy]

So you understand we have amendments in order to bring the constitution around to modern reason....

How does legislation on a class of weapons that are used in less than %4 of all FIREARM homicides (ALL RIFLES) = Bringing the constitution around to modern reason? It seems like a giant waste of time and money to me. Do you not know why the 2nd Amendment exists?

[Farley1324]

How does legislation on a class of weapons that are used in less than %4 of all FIREARM homicides (ALL RIFLES) = Bringing the constitution around to modern reason? It seems like a giant waste of time and money to me. Do you not know why the 2nd Amendment exists?

Besides that, it would take a Constitutional Amendment to do that. Legislation doesn't cut it.

[916stang]

i usually stay away from gun discussions on a forum but dudes banning guns doesn't stop crime./thread

[spitty13]

LMAO he gets so butthurt and mad at the end

LMAO didn't think it was possible, but Piers is worse than O'Reilly

[absntraps69]

no. too many idiot conspiracy theory rednecks in this country. gawd dammm guvnerment tying to take away me freedoms!

[lui8906]

OMFG just wrote long response wasnt signed in lost it.

Cliff version.

Aussie not presuming to tell americans what to do. 3 observations.

1. At what point is one persons aspiration for personal safety reducing the safety of others and where do you draw the line?
2. Mental health checks seem like a no brainer. The majority of the big shootings in the US are crazy people. Or is their right to bear arms also inalienable?
3. It seems as if pro gun people paradoxically argue that AR's are much more efficient at stopping threats to their property, but also that pistols do all the killing. Why is this?