• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Should Assault Rifles used by Armies/ Terrorists be restricted in the USA?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Should Assault Rifles used by armies and terrorists be restricted?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Restricted to young people under a certain age


Results are only viewable after voting.

deathBOB

Senior member
Dec 2, 2007
545
203
116
Ever hear of the bill of rights, does your liberal drunken commie brain even know what that is? And which radified ammendment took rights and freedoms away from citizens???
LOL you used to be able to own other people until we changed that.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,515
13,519
136
Ever hear of the bill of rights, does your liberal drunken commie brain even know what that is? And which radified ammendment took rights and freedoms away from citizens???
The 13th amendment did that.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,596
7,665
136
who are you to decide how this man decides on how to protect his family and property? if you want idiotic, the garbage you wrote is 100% prime.
Well you can't have an machine gun a tank a bazooka a grenade launcher so someone has already decided for you.

:lollipop:
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,515
13,519
136
Well you can't have an machine gun a tank a bazooka a grenade launcher so someone has already decided for you.

:lollipop:
Well, yeh, but he just knows he has a God given Constitutional right to such things. Republican Jeezus told him in his dreams.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,423
614
126
Well you can't have an machine gun a tank a bazooka a grenade launcher so someone has already decided for you.

:lollipop:
Fail. if I get the ATF permits i can have all of those things. So back to the dumbass title of this thread, YES MILITARY HARDWARE IS RESTRICTED. it is not banned.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DietDrThunder

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,019
3,081
126
Y'all need to build a Gunbrary in every town. People can then just sign out a gun for 1 week intervals.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
271
126
In liberal-land, you have no fundamental right to defend yourself, so sucks to be you, bro. You need to crawl on your knees to the god of government to tell you what you're allowed to do and beg them to defend you; sucks to be you and your family if the authorities don't get there in time. It's also your fault for having stuff that crooks want.

This is exactly what our founders were concerned about when they created the Constitution; it's why the 2nd amendment is where it is in the Bill of Rights. The BoR is a deliberate list of negative rights to limit government to preserve the freedom of individuals and states; many liberals hate this. Think I'm off base here? Do a quick google search on "Obama's view of the Constitution". You'll find links to center-left leaning sources that describe how Obama weakened the Constitution.

As to the 2nd amendment, there were multi-shot capable weapons (though crude) at the time of writing of the BoR. They had rifles, not just smooth-barrel muskets. Furthermore, as firearm technology progressed through the 19th century, the government didn't have any issue with private citizens having access to said new technology in weapons. I'll leave it at that only because there are some that advocate that the founders only envisioned muskets when they wrote the 2nd amendment, so that's all that private citizens should be allowed to own. Fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated, as they should be.

To close, libs can talk about bans all they want, but until they figure out how to disarm criminals, nothing good will happen. All you'll have is disarmed people at the mercy of armed thugs. You'll still have the ongoing slaughter in our inner cities and you'll still have to deal with the armed Latino gangs that are making there way here thanks to the lax immigration policies of your beloved Obama. There. That'll trigger a few of the snowflakes that live here. :)

I live in a rural area. No police nearby. WTF good is a single shot gun? 3 armed robbers show up at my house that gun would be useless/suicide.

Fern
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,596
7,665
136
In liberal-land, you have no fundamental right to defend yourself, so sucks to be you, bro. You need to crawl on your knees to the god of government to tell you what you're allowed to do and beg them to defend you; sucks to be you and your family if the authorities don't get there in time. It's also your fault for having stuff that crooks want.

This is exactly what our founders were concerned about when they created the Constitution; it's why the 2nd amendment is where it is in the Bill of Rights. The BoR is a deliberate list of negative rights to limit government to preserve the freedom of individuals and states; many liberals hate this. Think I'm off base here? Do a quick google search on "Obama's view of the Constitution". You'll find links to center-left leaning sources that describe how Obama weakened the Constitution.

As to the 2nd amendment, there were multi-shot capable weapons (though crude) at the time of writing of the BoR. They had rifles, not just smooth-barrel muskets. Furthermore, as firearm technology progressed through the 19th century, the government didn't have any issue with private citizens having access to said new technology in weapons. I'll leave it at that only because there are some that advocate that the founders only envisioned muskets when they wrote the 2nd amendment, so that's all that private citizens should be allowed to own. Fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated, as they should be.

To close, libs can talk about bans all they want, but until they figure out how to disarm criminals, nothing good will happen. All you'll have is disarmed people at the mercy of armed thugs. You'll still have the ongoing slaughter in our inner cities and you'll still have to deal with the armed Latino gangs that are making there way here thanks to the lax immigration policies of your beloved Obama. There. That'll trigger a few of the snowflakes that live here. :)
Thank you for your concern.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
271
126
In a home invasion scenario, a well armed and competent homeowner can fend off 3 intruders. The homeowner has a tactical advantage of knowing the layout oh his / her home. Now if said homeowner is chilling on his / her couch watching Netflix and the 3 crooks crash through the door (with no warning) guns blazing, yeah the homeowner is probably toast.

Again, the tension comes from differing philosophies. Some stress individual rights / freedoms while others stress government's / society's rights over the individual. I agree that there needs to be some type of balance between the two, but I lean to the side of the individual. I'm willing to accept risk to preserve freedom.

If three armed robbers show up at your house that's three versus one. Or are you hoping that they've been trained like a Star Wars stormtrooper, then they announce themselves to give you sufficient notice so you're ready with your favourite action hero fantasy to get on?
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
271
126
Well, hey, I'm a regular Macgyver. I'm confident of my abilities to fend off 3 armed crooks with naught but a box of toothpicks, a box of rubber bands, and my wife's nail file; and if that fails, I can make a small bomb out of Tide pods and other household cleaning agents. But if the crooks turn out to be millennials, I'll just toss the Tide pods at them, along with a box of Trojans; their instincts will take over and I'll easily disarm them while they snarf down the pods and snort the Trojans. If they survive, I'll whip them up some hot pockets and send them to my basement until the cops show up.

He raised the idiotic example as a reason why he needs firearms, and I have no idea why you added "ninja-like" to your response; it's logical that burglars are either going to take the stealthy approach or just go all-in straight away. In either case it's going to take the average person by surprise, whether or not they're tooled up as much as practically possible.

Furthermore, you're acting like firearms are the only way to defend what's you and yours, and you're adopting common tactic of assuming extremes to disparage the opposing arguments: try to avoid it, it's idiotic.

As a side note, I'm all for self-defence classes; frankly I'm sure that there are plenty of things the average person could learn about defending their person, family and possessions. ie. it's not the size of the weapon that counts, it's what you do with it.



If you restrict the availability of firearms and means of legal ownership then it is logical that they will be less easily available. If they're less easy to acquire, then logically less people "good" or "bad" will have them.

Furthermore, guns are not like drugs, alcohol or any other vices as far as the average person is concerned, so the comparison does not work.

Also, if you're going to bother responding, then try and actually answer the questions and points I put forward.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY