Can someone explain rationally why we should not have an assault weapons ban?

[fskimospy]

Dancing in the blood of children to contol others.

This is the mind of the liberal.

Saying insane things, routinely making racist, paranoid, and bigoted pronouncements, perpetually frothing with poorly informed rage, and making foolish bets that he keeps losing.

This is the mind of the spidey07.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I was given a gun by my father a couple of years ago. If I did not have security clearance and worked in the military at the time, I don't think I would have gotten my NYC gun permit. But it's a Desert Eagle and I mainly take it to the range to play with since it would be very loud in my New York apartment and serve as a powerful distraction. I could get another gun but no one is going to break into my doorman, high security building.

With that out of the way, I'm trying to get my head around why any civilian would need an assault weapon. 2nd Amendment? I doubt that would stop a tyrranical government. Because criminals can get it? Well, they can easily get it because it's legal. Make it illegal and no one will be able to get hold of one so easily. Also, criminals can access a lot of other illegal items but that doesn't mean we should legalize them and even the playing field.

So, seriously, what logic is there to keep it around other than as a plaything at the range?

Because they're hardly ever any kind of problem, and we have a guaranteed right to them (ie military weapon of the day).

 

[Bird222]

What's funny is that I'm a 2nd amendment supporter, but that doesn't fit your ultra right agenda so you have to pretend I'm not.

Nowhere in your 'right to defend your life' is there an unfettered access to all kinds of weaponry that you might want. This is such a bullshit argument. As someone who firmly supports people's right to arm and defend themselves, it's hilariously obvious that the US has had FAR too lenient gun laws for a very long time now. The idea that restricting some of the more dangerous forms of weaponry would be an assault on freedom is a fever dream fantasy that I have no time for.

QFT

 

[Bird222]

Dancing in the blood of children to contol others.

This is the mind of the liberal.

With your track record you have no room to talk about anybody's mind.

 

[schneiderguy]

Why would you choose a handgun chambered in a round that is nicknamed .50 "African Eliminator" if you weren't a card carrying member of the KKK?

If anything, that a person who is probably an Exalted Cyclops wants an assault weapons ban, is a good reason not to have one.

 

[schneiderguy]

Serious post:

1. An assault weapons ban is very likely unconstitutional
2. The 94 AWB had zero effect on crime rates
3. "Assault weapons" are functionally identical to other semiautomatic rifles, and differ only in cosmetic features

The fact of the matter is, there is no "rational" reason for wanting an assault weapons ban. All such desires are based completely on emotions and a religious belief that "scary looking guns are bad".

 

[spidey07]

So far nobody has provided any good reason for a ban.

Plenty of sound and logical arguments against it have. if you stick to facts and logic, no reason for a ban can be provided. All reasons for it are strictly emotional.

 

[xj0hnx]

So where is your tank and nuclear missile located?

Oh look, the dumbass progressive trotted out the "herp a derp, wherez yer tankz!" For starters neither of those are individual weapons, second if there were an invasion/civil war the tank crews would have the tanks.

What's funny is that I'm a 2nd amendment supporter, but that doesn't fit your ultra right agenda so you have to pretend I'm not.

Where did I say you weren't? Or are you just bringing that up to help justify you retarded response? Ultra right? That fucking funny. You really are ignorant.

Nowhere in your 'right to defend your life' is there an unfettered access to all kinds of weaponry that you might want. This is such a bullshit argument. As someone who firmly supports people's right to arm and defend themselves, it's hilariously obvious that the US has had FAR too lenient gun laws for a very long time now. The idea that restricting some of the more dangerous forms of weaponry would be an assault on freedom is a fever dream fantasy that I have no time for.

An AR15 is no more dangerous than a Mini 14, yet the Mini 14 was not touched by the AWB. You know why? Because you ignorant progressives don't know what you are talking about when discussing firearms. Your knee jerk, appeal to emotions do nothing to solve the real problem, instead blaming cosmetic features to appear that you are "doing something". The fact is that most of these murders were carried out with handguns, shotguns, and other weapons not covered in any of the previous bans, but you play on ignorance and cry about "ASSAULT!!!!WEAPONS!!!!" because you know that they are "scary" and will be easier to ban. Your ignorance is disgusting.

 

[buckshot24]

What's funny is that I'm a 2nd amendment supporter, but that doesn't fit your ultra right agenda so you have to pretend I'm not.

Nowhere in your 'right to defend your life' is there an unfettered access to all kinds of weaponry that you might want. This is such a bullshit argument. As someone who firmly supports people's right to arm and defend themselves, it's hilariously obvious that the US has had FAR too lenient gun laws for a very long time now. The idea that restricting some of the more dangerous forms of weaponry would be an assault on freedom is a fever dream fantasy that I have no time for.

Which guns should be banned?

 

[fskimospy]

Oh look, the dumbass progressive trotted out the "herp a derp, wherez yer tankz!" For starters neither of those are individual weapons, second if there were an invasion/civil war the tank crews would have the tanks.



Where did I say you weren't? Or are you just bringing that up to help justify you retarded response? Ultra right? That fucking funny. You really are ignorant.

Your post was a clear insinuation of it, but whatever.

An AR15 is no more dangerous than a Mini 14, yet the Mini 14 was not touched by the AWB. You know why? Because you ignorant progressives don't know what you are talking about when discussing firearms. Your knee jerk, appeal to emotions do nothing to solve the real problem, instead blaming cosmetic features to appear that you are "doing something". The fact is that most of these murders were carried out with handguns, shotguns, and other weapons not covered in any of the previous bans, but you play on ignorance and cry about "ASSAULT!!!!WEAPONS!!!!" because you know that they are "scary" and will be easier to ban. Your ignorance is disgusting.

I am willing to bet that I know more about firearms than you do, and have both fired and cared for a wider range of them than you have. So think twice before you start to call people ignorant, just a personal tip from me to you. What's the next hilariously false spittle flecked accusation you're going to try to make against the invisible progressive ghosts in your head?

I don't really give a shit about an assault weapons ban in its old form or a new one. I primarily want much stricter access to high rate of fire guns with large clips/magazines. They serve no useful purpose.

 

[spidey07]

They serve a very highly natural right and purpose. Defense.

And what is a "high rate of fire" weapon anyway?

 

[blankslate]

Because the AWB will be toothless and have many loopholes like the last one.

And not a comprehensive ban that happened in Australia after a firearms massacre.

Oh and money from the firearms manufacturers pumped in to the NRA and lawmakers, that makes any AWB that might get passed the same or worse as the one before.

 

[shortylickens]

Dancing in the blood of children to contol others.

This is the mind of the liberal.

Ummm, I'm not too keen on liberals but thats just fucking wrong.
They've provided plenty of logical arguments to ban guns. Its all incorrect, but they are arguments.

 

[glenn1]

Can someone explain rationally why we should not have an assault weapons ban?

Several reasons actually, which I'll outline below. First, let's define our terms. As commonly defined nowadays, an assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle, chambered in an intermediate caliber (almost always .223), and designed to cosmetically look like (and sometimes possess features of, such as flash suppressors) military weapons like the AR-15. Now, onto the reasons:

1. Focusing on the weapons platform is stupid. Would you feel better with an assault weapon ban in place and forcing a shooter to use something even more dangerous instead, like a Mini-14 or sawed-off shotgun at close ranges or a high-powered main battle rifle at long ranges?

2. None of the commonly defined traits of an assault weapon make it any more dangerous than any other firearm. The presence or absence of a bayonet lug on weapons isn't going to make the next shooting any more or less deadly.

3. Fixating on high-capacity magazine availability for assault weapons is stupid. If they were really that dangerous, you should move to ban them for police also. Probably even more so for police, with all the stories I hear about suspicious homeless person with no weapon being shot 86 times by police. In any event, blanket bans on all high-cap mags is especially stupid, since limiting the size of magazines in my .22LR pistol I use for plinking at the range in no way makes you safer.

 

[buckshot24]

I don't really give a shit about an assault weapons ban in its old form or a new one. I primarily want much stricter access to high rate of fire guns with large clips/magazines. They serve no useful purpose.

Law abiding citizens should only have access to muskets then? Make sure you aim real careful when some nutjob is coming at you with his illegal pistol because you're only going to get one shot.

 

[buckshot24]

And what is a "high rate of fire" weapon anyway?

Non-muskets.

 

[fskimospy]

Law abiding citizens should only have access to muskets then? Make sure you aim real careful when some nutjob is coming at you with his illegal pistol because you're only going to get one shot.

Yes, clearly the only choice available is between muskets and not. Do you know anything about guns?

This is of course leaving out the fact that I said 'high rate of fire WITH large magazines', which is a statement that requires both features in order to be fulfilled, but who's counting?

 

[Dari]

Serious post:

1. An assault weapons ban is very likely unconstitutional
2. The 94 AWB had zero effect on crime rates
3. "Assault weapons" are functionally identical to other semiautomatic rifles, and differ only in cosmetic features

The fact of the matter is, there is no "rational" reason for wanting an assault weapons ban. All such desires are based completely on emotions and a religious belief that "scary looking guns are bad".

It would be a good place to start. Fact is, we have the fewest gun violence where gun laws are lax and where gun laws are severe. Both sides can easily make that argument. It's when you have a rickety, hodge-podge system (each state with different gun laws) where guns are easily available in one part of the country but hard to get in another part. Well, when you can easily get it where it's easily available and kill where it isn't, what's the fucking point? Either it's all or nothing.

 

[Smoblikat]

I was given a gun by my father a couple of years ago. If I did not have security clearance and worked in the military at the time, I don't think I would have gotten my NYC gun permit. But it's a Desert Eagle and I mainly take it to the range to play with since it would be very loud in my New York apartment and serve as a powerful distraction. I could get another gun but no one is going to break into my doorman, high security building.

With that out of the way, I'm trying to get my head around why any civilian would need an assault weapon. 2nd Amendment? I doubt that would stop a tyrranical government. Because criminals can get it? Well, they can easily get it because it's legal. Make it illegal and no one will be able to get hold of one so easily. Also, criminals can access a lot of other illegal items but that doesn't mean we should legalize them and even the playing field.

So, seriously, what logic is there to keep it around other than as a plaything at the range?

Thats working SO well with the "war on drugs"

 

[buckshot24]

Yes, clearly the only choice available is between muskets and not. Do you know anything about guns?

This is of course leaving out the fact that I said 'high rate of fire WITH large magazines', which is a statement that requires both features in order to be fulfilled, but who's counting?

So what guns should be banned?

 

[fskimospy]

So what guns should be banned?

I would have to research that and get back to you, what sort of answer would you possibly have expected?

 

[Dari]

Thats working SO well with the "war on drugs"

A gun is not something someone takes pleasure or satisfaction in using...

 

[Cerb]

This is of course leaving out the fact that I said 'high rate of fire WITH large magazines', which is a statement that requires both features in order to be fulfilled, but who's counting?

How many guns are going to reload slower than you pull the trigger the n+1th time? IE, you still haven't defined what a high rate of fire is--any semi-auto?

 

[spidey07]

A gun is not something someone takes pleasure or satisfaction in using...

Dead wrong on that point.

 

[Bulk Beef]

I would have to research that and get back to you, what sort of answer would you possibly have expected?

Once you decide which scary weapons should be banned, explain what your plan will be for the ones that are already out there. Ditto on the scary hi-cap mags.