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

[Farley1324]

OMFG just wrote long response wasnt signed in lost it.

Cliff version.

Aussie not presuming to tell americans what to do. Two 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?

1. The Second Amendment isn't about one person's personal safety
2. If they are too dangerous to own a gun, they are too dangerous to be free in society, and need to be institutionalized. Which is a difficult process for obvious reasons

[IamIchiban]

My Smith & Wesson

[spitty13]

[Jeffreezy]

OMFG just wrote long response wasnt signed in lost it.

Cliff version.

Aussie not presuming to tell americans what to do. Two 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?

1.When the means to someone's personal safety inherently has to intrude on another's.
2.You have the right to bear arms until you have been proven in a court of law to be a danger to yourself or others. Much like how the court can strip you of your right to free assembly & association (gang injunctions).

[Nocturnal310]

what difference is it gonna make?

if someone wants to kill civilians, any firearm will do the job.

its not as easy to kill multiple civilians with a knife or other non-firing weapons though.

[BrbBowflexing]

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

So conspiracy theorists are the only ones who can clearly see that the government is actually trying to take away a constitutional freedom? I guess I should start making my tin foil hat then.

[Twist3dJok3r]

The more and more I read your arguments, the more and more I am convinced you are right Farley, spitties, etc (srs). I am interested to see the proposal Obama has. Thank you for putting up with my inquires, it was educational. I can't continue to sit and here debate, but I appreciate the points you made.

[Farley1324]

1.When the means to someone's personal safety inherently has to intrude on another's.
2.You have the right to bear arms until you have been proven in a court of law to be a danger to yourself or others. Much like how the court can strip you of your right to free assembly & association (gang injunctions).

Yes.

There is no presumption of guilt. There is no presumption of being unfit to exercise your rights. The opposite must be proven in a court of law/by a jury of your peers, before Rights can be taken away.

[djfuzzy]

OMFG just wrote long response wasnt signed in lost it.

Cliff version.

Aussie not presuming to tell americans what to do. Two 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?

1. Are you serious? How is my legally owning and safely operating (after years and years of qualifications and instructing the use of) firearms reducing the safety of others? The line is drawn when people who don't know anything about a subject start to learn about it and form valid opinions based on fact (read: not statistics). The line as far as the law is concerned is perfectly fine; civilians can't own military grade weapons, and even me being a servicemember can't bring a military grade weapon home.
2. The right to obtain arms does need to be regulated, but it shouldn't be up to the government to decide if the entire ~300,000,000 people in the country are unfit to own weapons properly. Mental health checks and background checks to need to be stepped up tremendously. Unfortunately, for that one person out of every five (according to the CDC) that means that there unalienable right might become alienated (which is Unconstitutional). But that's where the lives are saved, keeping the weapons away from those who will use them to harm others.

[Farley1324]

The more and more I read your arguments, the more and more I am convinced you are right Farley, spitties, etc (srs). I am interested to see the proposal Obama has. Thank you for putting up with my inquires, it was educational.

Normally I am more patient, but there's too much retard going around this past month.

[Culking]

I don't understand the constitution and I am an idiot. I am incapable of seeing the forest through the trees. I haven't read the 2nd amendment and I think it protects rifles for hunting use.

You are an idiot.

[Freek314]

And if rifles were not available to the civilian population, then that wouldnt be the case. Rifles serve no practical purpose in a civilians hands as opposed to a hammer.

Last straw. Negged.

[Twist3dJok3r]

Normally I am more patient, but there's too much retard going around this past month.

I understand its a heated topic (as evidence from the negs I've received in the past hour), but if you guys don't take the time to elaborate and explain your reasoning, I can't be expected to understand your side.

[LizzieTish]

Yes, we should be allowed to own assault rifles.

However, assault rifles are already basically illegal. Assault rifles are fully automatic and classified as "machine guns" by the United States government.

The right of civilians in a free society to possess "military-looking," or even actual military weapons, is essential if a monopoly of force is not to reside in the hands of government, where modern history shows the potential for far greater abuses and crimes exists than are possible for any deranged individual. Every major genocide in the twentieth century has been preceded by laws which disarmed the eventual victims of their ability to resist the progressive imposition of murderous tyranny. Once granted a monopoly of force, government acquires power that cannot be readily opposed or revoked.

Rifles of any kind are very rarely used in crime, since they are more difficult to conceal than are handguns, and "military-looking" rifles are generally more expensive than both handguns and common long guns (rifles, shotguns) used for hunting (see 3.5). Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that weapons having no "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" may be taxed in interstate commerce, clearly implying that weapons having such reasonable relationship with the militia are those which the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear, moreso even than other types of weapons. In other words, the arms protected by the Second Amendment are those "such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment.

~Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. Reports 154 (1840), prominently cited in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

This current power grab is not about assault rifles. The media lies and misleads.

Stop being a bunch of sheep.

It's about *all* guns that can be used for self defense.

[Culking]

I understand its a heated topic (as evidence from the negs I've received in the past hour), but if you guys don't take the time to elaborate and explain your reasoning, I can't be expected to understand your side.

So presented with no evidence, instead of taking a neutral uninformed opinion, you automatically call for a ban on sporting rifles?

[Spartan5364]

I understand its a heated topic (as evidence from the negs I've received in the past hour), but if you guys don't take the time to elaborate and explain your reasoning, I can't be expected to understand your side.

that's the issue here, we've presented it to you crystal clear many times over

[Twist3dJok3r]

So presented with no evidence, instead of taking a neutral uninformed opinion, you automatically call for a ban on sporting rifles?

I presented an argument to challenge you opinion and learn. How can I go from neutral uninformed to informed if I dont ask the questions necessary for understanding?

that's the issue here, we've presented it to you crystal clear many times over

If it was so crystal clear, there wouldn't even be a debate in today's society about the issue.

[Farley1324]

that's the issue here, we've presented it to you crystal clear many times over

His arguments were breed of a lot more than mere ignorance. Either he was trolling or there is an underlying mentality at work (a not uncommon one)

[Farley1324]

I presented an argument to challenge you opinion and learn. How can I go from neutral uninformed to informed if I dont ask the questions necessary for understanding?

.

Presenting an (uninformed and incorrect) argument is a hell of a lot different than asking questions.

[Rockchalk0420]

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

"...shall not be infringed."

[Twist3dJok3r]

Presenting an (uninformed and incorrect) argument is a hell of a lot different than asking questions.

Presenting my uninformed and incorrect arguments allowed you to present your side and inform me.

[hockeyd13]

1. At what point is one persons aspiration for personal safety reducing the safety of others and where do you draw the line?

A two-way street here, and I consider the pro-security route far more dangerous as a whole. If you're willing to base the lawful ownership of a firearm on the actions of criminals, in the name of security, at which point do you disassemble the remaining articles in the Bill of Rights, in the name of security. Sadly, with the sustained Patriot Act and the NDAA, the entire Bill of Rights is already exposed and weakened, in the name of "security". As it was argued by our nations founders, it is better to preserve the freedoms of the individual, provided those freedoms do not immediately negate the freedoms of others.

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?

The danger here is that the majority of mental health analysis is largely subjective. While this is changing as neuro-imaging techniques are more comprehensive and specific patterns are being linked to specific mental diseases, the overall risk is that relatively stable individuals might have their rights exposed to excessive "medical legislation".

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?

Pistols are far easier to conceal so they are more likely to be used by the common criminal element. That being said, if a criminal is going to use a handgun to invade your home, why should the law inadvertently mandate a level playing field between a criminal and a law-abiding citizen?

[iron_monster]

Yes=75%
No=25%

Misc Patriots I am proud

[Farley1324]

Presenting my uninformed and incorrect arguments allowed you to present your side and inform me.

A much better method is to simply ask questions.

[lui8906]

1. The Second Amendment isn't about one person's personal safety

So the second amendment is more about citizens feeling safe against their government than other citizens or both?

2.You have the right to bear arms until you have been proven in a court of law to be a danger to yourself or others. Much like how the court can strip you of your right to free assembly & association (gang injunctions).

That's all well and good theoretically. But if my prove of not being able to bear arms safely is to go out to a mall and kill 15 people and then commit suicide not much good a court is going to be to the victims...

1. Are you serious? How is my legally owning and safely operating (after years and years of qualifications and instructing the use of) firearms reducing the safety of others? The line is drawn when people who don't know anything about a subject start to learn about it and form valid opinions based on fact (read: not statistics). The line as far as the law is concerned is perfectly fine; civilians can't own military grade weapons, and even me being a servicemember can't bring a military grade weapon home.

I certainly wasn't suggesting you or anyone in this thread is a risk or danger, it seems to an outsider like a lot of the debate really revolves around disagreements over the degree of firepower an individual can possess. Why are certain military grade weapons off limits, wouldn't it help keep the government in check?

In Australia the media present gun enthusiasts in a fairly negative light and often makes fun of NRA statements etc. so just trying to see things from a different perspective plz no negs...

[kusok]

Yes=75%
No=25%

Misc Patriots I am proud

Tru, but sadly this poll would be ~80% - NO on many/some other forums.

This is predominantly an independent alpha male forum you know Support for Ron Paul is strong here too, but sadly is not the case on many other forums.

[lui8906]

Thanks for your reply, as always it seems things aren't as simple as they appear. Repped.

[lui8906]

The gun homicide rate in the US is quite high, is their anything you guys would do try and bring it down or is that just the cost of freedom?

[Farley1324]

So the second amendment is more about citizens feeling safe against their government than other citizens or both?

"Feeling" has nothing to do with it.

The Second Amendment is primarily a check against tyrannical government.

That's all well and good theoretically. But if my prove of not being able to bear arms safely is to go out to a mall and kill 15 people and then commit suicide not much good a court is going to be to the victims...

There are evil people in the world. Some of them want to kill a lot of other people. Some of them will succeed.

This is not justification for denying millions their natural (some say God given) Rights, or for violating the United States Constitution.

I certainly wasn't suggesting you or anyone in this thread is a risk or danger, it seems to an outsider like a lot of the debate really revolves around disagreements over the degree of firepower an individual can possess. Why are certain military grade weapons off limits, wouldn't it help keep the government in check?

Because the government makes the laws and they want to be in power.

Because the sheep are easily startled.

[Farley1324]

The gun homicide rate in the US is quite high, is their anything you guys would do try and bring it down or is that just the cost of freedom?

Get rid of "gun free" zones unless they are controlled access where every single person entering must go through screening backed by armed security (and people carrying a gun can secure it in a locker at or near the entrance)

Stop denying the law abiding citizens the ability to adequately defend themselves against the criminals (lots of things to be done here)

Check out the laws and homicide rates in Chicago and Washington D.C. The law abiding there are heavy disarmed, but their homicide rates are extremely high.

Disarming the law abiding is what many have been trying, and it is a massive failure.