Assault weapon bans

[tacoman71]

What do you think should be done about assault weapons? Do you support them or not?

[Spendulus]

What do you think should be done about assault weapons? Do you support them or not?

NOW that's an important question....   Should a large majority of people, who have hired some enforcers who carry assault weapons, require themselves to not have assault weapons, given that a large number of them already do have said assault weapons?

Can the enforcers with the assault weapons be reasonably controlled by the majority as is with their percentage of weaponry?

Can the enforcers with the assault weapons be reasonably controlled by the majority if and when the enforcers pry the last assault weapon from the cold dead fingers of members of the majority who had their own?

Just think of how nice the world would be, after the enforcers take the assault rifles from the BAD PEOPLE who have the assault rifles.  They are BAD because they have assault rifles.  This is an important job to take them away.  Plus don't forget they may have ASSAULT pistols.  They might have a cache deep under their floor full of ASSAULT beer or ASSAULT bacon or Dog forbid, assault knives.  These are all certainly within the scope of the banning of "assault weapons" as everyone knows, water pistols and toy cap guns qualify too because in the mind of the child, they are vicariously playing with ASSAULT WEAPONS.  

Not only that but Virtual Assault Weapons exist, such as macros that embed in keyboards and rapid fire a succession of characters into the Internet tubes.  

And don't forget the Bitcoin Assault Weapons From Beyond Reasonable Reason; which have an array of Force rapid firing computational giga hashes.....  far greater amounts than any reasonable person would need to protect himself.

Only government should have rapid auto hash capability any individual citizen subject should be restricted to one hash per keystroke and a maximum of five per day.  Then we can proceed to Ensure Public Safety.

Next we plan to regulate the foot as and when it is a rapid fire Assault Weapon.  Walking is of course reasonable, but running should be limited to a maximum of six steps, sufficient for any Subject to avoid an on rushing car.  

The work yet to be done is vast, my friend, and I am sure you will do your part to help.   Do not doubt that we shall call on you to help from time to time, as your reports to Central Control have proven very helpful in the past.  If you keep it up, and continue to point out the Unpatriotic and Dangerous, you will be well rewarded.  If you make your quota of Reports on the Enemies you will be allowed a part share in the Bacon, taken from all of the evil ones before they were locked away.  Be sure to Report them before they do anything bad, only when they have that suspicious look to them.  Your inner and well trained sense will tell you; listen to it well.

Be vigilant, Komrade!  

[BitcoinBarrel]

I think assault rifles are only "scarier-looking" rifles that perform equally as well.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I think assault rifles are only "scarier-looking" rifles that perform equally as well.

This.  The fact that there is even a debate on a made up term like "assault weapons" means the statists who made the term up already won.

It would be like banning certain car paint colors, spoilers, and tires in an attempt to reduce traffic fatalities.  The "assault vehicle ban of 2013".  Won't someone think of the children.  Nobody needs to drive a military vehicle on public highways.  etc. etc.

[Spendulus]

I think assault rifles are only "scarier-looking" rifles that perform equally as well.

This.  The fact that there is even a debate on a made up term like "assault weapons" means the statists who made the term up already won.

It would be like banning certain car paint colors, spoilers, and tires in an attempt to reduce traffic fatalities.  The "assault vehicle ban of 2013".  Won't someone think of the children.  Nobody needs to drive a military vehicle on public highways.  etc. etc.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/williams/130111

and oh, by the way.....banning assault weapons, that was certainly part of the...

"hope and change"
"yes we can"

mindset of dwarf elitists standing...
 on the shoulders of midget intellects....
 on top of a pile of democratic statist bullshit....

[RoadToHell]

Does "assault weapon" mean anything that can be used as a weapon to assault another person?  Like baseball bats, 2x4s, steak knives, cars, steel pipes, odd objects d'art, folding chairs, fertilizer, fire arms, etc?  Sounds extreme to ban all of those things.  Maybe we should just outlaw murder and assault.

[Elwar]

No rifle that has the ability to assault someone should be allowed.

The only guns that should exist are the ones that cannot be used to assault.

[BitcoinBarrel]

[tacoman71]

Does "assault weapon" mean anything that can be used as a weapon to assault another person?  Like baseball bats, 2x4s, steak knives, cars, steel pipes, odd objects d'art, folding chairs, fertilizer, fire arms, etc?  Sounds extreme to ban all of those things.  Maybe we should just outlaw murder and assault.

Oh yeah? Sure its for self defense. What if someone gets an assault rifle for the purpose of "self defense" and then uses that to kill someone? Sure other people with guns might kill the aggressor. But what if that guy already killed someone? Just one person. What if that person was you? Or one of your family members?

And that stupid argument that says we need to outlaw every other thing that could kill or harm people (i.e. gravity, knives, bats) if we ban assault weapons. Just think this way. If you were going to kill a bunch of kids in a school, what would be your weapon of choice? A knife? A shotgun? A pistol? A piece of wood? Maybe something that can spit out the most projectiles per second? i.e. An assault rifle?

[RoadToHell]

Does "assault weapon" mean anything that can be used as a weapon to assault another person?  Like baseball bats, 2x4s, steak knives, cars, steel pipes, odd objects d'art, folding chairs, fertilizer, fire arms, etc?  Sounds extreme to ban all of those things.  Maybe we should just outlaw murder and assault.

Oh yeah? Sure its for self defense. What if someone gets an assault rifle for the purpose of "self defense" and then uses that to kill someone? Sure other people with guns might kill the aggressor. But what if that guy already killed someone? Just one person. What if that person was you? Or one of your family members?

And that stupid argument that says we need to outlaw every other thing that could kill or harm people (i.e. gravity, knives, bats) if we ban assault weapons. Just think this way. If you were going to kill a bunch of kids in a school, what would be your weapon of choice? A knife? A shotgun? A pistol? A piece of wood? Maybe something that can spit out the most projectiles per second? i.e. An assault rifle?

I made no such argument.  I asked for a definition of "assault weapon" and then threw out one possible definition.

So once "assault weapons" are banned, then what?  Mass killings by warped minds will still take place.  Do you think the body count will drop?  And the 2nd ammemdment isn't (only) there just so people can "self defend" in simple one-on-one crimes.  It's part of the whole government derived from the people concept.  The people should have the power, not the government.

Also, if you need to resort to debasing adjectives to prop up your logic, then you probably need to re-evaluate your logic.

[Spendulus]

Does "assault weapon" mean anything that can be used as a weapon to assault another person?  Like baseball bats, 2x4s, steak knives, cars, steel pipes, odd objects d'art, folding chairs, fertilizer, fire arms, etc?  Sounds extreme to ban all of those things.  Maybe we should just outlaw murder and assault.

Oh yeah? Sure its for self defense. What if someone gets an assault rifle for the purpose of "self defense" and then uses that to kill someone? Sure other people with guns might kill the aggressor. But what if that guy already killed someone? Just one person. What if that person was you? Or one of your family members?

And that stupid argument that says we need to outlaw every other thing that could kill or harm people (i.e. gravity, knives, bats) if we ban assault weapons. Just think this way. If you were going to kill a bunch of kids in a school, what would be your weapon of choice? A knife? A shotgun? A pistol? A piece of wood? Maybe something that can spit out the most projectiles per second? i.e. An assault rifle?

I'll tell you where we are actually headed on this.  You're obviously concerned about the issue.

We're going to have a thousand schools where administrators and teachers are packing, and a whole lot more where they are not packing heat.

And we're going to see where the crazy loons go to do their shooting.

Betcha I can tell you where.

Then a whole lot more of those where they are not allowed to carry are going to fix their stupidity.

And that, my friend, has nothing at all to do with "assault rifle" or "assault pistol" or "scary gun" or any other lame misunderstanding of the issue or reframing of the problem for liberal control freak objectives.

[foggyb]

If you were going to kill a bunch of kids in a school, what would be your weapon of choice? A knife? A shotgun? A pistol? A piece of wood? Maybe something that can spit out the most projectiles per second? i.e. An assault rifle?

Fully automatic rifles were not mainly made for shooting more people more quickly. The vast majority of bullets fired in war never hit anyone. They are fired in order to make the enemy keep their heads down and allow friendly forces to advance and flank the enemy in order to win with minimum loss of life on BOTH SIDES. This is called 'suppressive fire' and the more bullets fired the better.

Fully automatic rifles fired in full auto mode are MUCH less accurate than single shot semi-automatics because each shot's recoil moves the following shots off target.

Conclusion:

The weapon a logical criminal sicko would choose for killing lots of unarmed people efficiently in a small space is the semi-automatic rifle.

[zedicus]

Ban the keyboard!! Its fires words in succession like a projectile onto screens that may effect the thinking of millions! Just think of the children! We cant possible let these things get in the hands of the bad guys! What if they write a book! These digital letters, flung by these keyboards that carry little to no warning before they cause havoc on you're mind, are the number one enemy! Before we can defeat this enemy, it is necessary to launch an all out offensive on these word slingers and impose heavy fines and jail time for anyone caught using a keyboard!

Ladies and gentleman i present to you,  the most dangerous and sophisticated piece of machinery that endangers our kids, our wives, businesses, community's and our way of life!


"They call it":     The Filco NKR, Tactile Action Mechanical Keyboard

[Mike Christ]

snip

This is why politics always confused me when I was younger.  Why do they call themselves liberals, and then aim to use government force to take liberties away?  That's not very liberal, unless you consider taking liberties liberally as liberal, which seems to be the only thing they're liberal about.  Why don't we just call dogs "cats", pop open a cold beer and call it a day?

[DeathAndTaxes]

snip

This is why politics always confused me when I was younger.  Why do they call themselves liberals, and then aim to use government force to take liberties away?  That's not very liberal, unless you consider taking liberties liberally as liberal, which seems to be the only thing they're liberal about.  Why don't we just call dogs "cats", pop open a cold beer and call it a day?

The reality is they are actually statists but that term isn't a nice sounding.  


Left or right is linear thinking and too simplistic.  At a minimum there are at least two axis social feedom and economic freedom.  "Liberals" tend to be liberal on the social freedom axis but horribly regressive on the economic freedom axis.  "Conservatives" tend to be more liberal on the economic freedom axis and but regressive on the social freedom aspect.  Honestly they are both merely "flavors" of the same statist agenda.

Socially liberal statist vs Socially conservative statist.


Every politician in the US is in the upper right quadrant so any labels are merely how they relate to each other.


An interesting quiz for two dimensional political views (takes about 10 minutes):
http://politicalcompass.org/test

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

If you were going to kill a bunch of kids in a school, what would be your weapon of choice? A knife? A shotgun? A pistol? A piece of wood? Maybe something that can spit out the most projectiles per second? i.e. An assault rifle?

Fully automatic rifles were not mainly made for shooting more people more quickly. The vast majority of bullets fired in war never hit anyone. They are fired in order to make the enemy keep their heads down and allow friendly forces to advance and flank the enemy in order to win with minimum loss of life on BOTH SIDES. This is called 'suppressive fire' and the more bullets fired the better.

Fully automatic rifles fired in full auto mode are MUCH less accurate than single shot semi-automatics because each shot's recoil moves the following shots off target.

Conclusion:

The weapon a logical criminal sicko would choose for killing lots of unarmed people efficiently in a small space is the semi-automatic rifle.

While it is true that in a war, single, well-aimed shots are the most effective, and that full-auto in military use is mainly used for covering fire to keep the enemies head down, in a civilian population, say a crowd at a concert or a movie, a full-auto can take out more people more quickly.
That being said, I don't think full-auto weapons should be banned.

[CoinsForTech]

In America I know this guns are a very heated topic, and as an Australian I'm not sure I fully understand your reasons for wanting such high-powered rifles at home. For the most part Australia is a very safe country so it could just be that I am unaware of how different other countries are.

What I will say is, Australians were once allowed the same rifles. Laws changed after the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre which seems to have had a tremendous effect on mass gun violence in this country. The government of the time issued a Gun Buy-Back scheme, and removed over 631,000 guns from our suburbs. Touch wood, we haven't had a similar massacre since.

[Spendulus]

In America I know this guns are a very heated topic, and as an Australian I'm not sure I fully understand your reasons for wanting such high-powered rifles at home. For the most part Australia is a very safe country so it could just be that I am unaware of how different other countries are.

What I will say is, Australians were once allowed the same rifles. Laws changed after the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre which seems to have had a tremendous effect on mass gun violence in this country. The government of the time issued a Gun Buy-Back scheme, and removed over 631,000 guns from our suburbs. Touch wood, we haven't had a similar massacre since.

But your government was founded by criminals, and we are only finding out that ours are.

[hawkeye]

In America I know this guns are a very heated topic, and as an Australian I'm not sure I fully understand your reasons for wanting such high-powered rifles at home. For the most part Australia is a very safe country so it could just be that I am unaware of how different other countries are.

What I will say is, Australians were once allowed the same rifles. Laws changed after the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre which seems to have had a tremendous effect on mass gun violence in this country. The government of the time issued a Gun Buy-Back scheme, and removed over 631,000 guns from our suburbs. Touch wood, we haven't had a similar massacre since.

Any stats on this?  I live in Australia and can't remember significant amounts of violence before.  The Port Arthur thing seemed to be a one-off and was a good way for government to further monopolize the ownership of weapons (in it's own hands).  

But then Aussie's have this unreal belief in the government that I've never understood.  Every little thing now, people go running to the government for solutions.   Anyone would think that the Australian govt is the messiah.  It's has a very communist, cultist feel in this country.  

But your government was founded by criminals, and we are only finding out that ours are.

That's all long forgotten.  Today, Aussies are soft and want their govt to look after them.

[hawkeye]

snip

This is why politics always confused me when I was younger.  Why do they call themselves liberals, and then aim to use government force to take liberties away?  That's not very liberal, unless you consider taking liberties liberally as liberal, which seems to be the only thing they're liberal about.  Why don't we just call dogs "cats", pop open a cold beer and call it a day?

It's like how North Korea calls itself the Democratic Republic of Korea.

Or how politicians give themselves the "Honourable" title.