A conservative case for an assault weapons ban

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

So, would it then be permissive to ban assault weapons, and indeed guns in general for people outside of those criteria?

Assault weapons can be banned now, they already were. How much further along the spectrum a weapons ban can go without an effervescence among the people is, unfortunately, an existential question.

My earlier point is that civilians in the US have cause to own weapons with paramilitary utility, in contrast to the judge's opinion.

[ArtVandelay]

You guys are full of excuses on why this won't work and that won't work.

Obviously most of you don't feel safe enough to not carry guns.

How do you suppose we make this country safer?

Why do you think people need semi-automatic weapons?(aside from the fact that you think its your right under the 2nd amendment)

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ArtVandelay

You guys are full of excuses on why this won't work and that won't work.

Obviously most of you don't feel safe enough to not carry guns.

How do you suppose we make this country safer?

Why do you think people need semi-automatic weapons?(aside from the fact that you think its your right under the 2nd amendment)

Semiautomatic rifles serve a militia purpose, which protects against threats to liberty from any source.

What I think would make the most difference in making the country safer against these massacres is enhanced school security (short of arming teachers) and reforming the mental health system in this country.

[gatormoe1]

These people would agree with ethnic cleansing camps if Obama supported it. Blind followers gobbling up anything he wants to campaign for.

[Gatoragman]

Art, Why Not?
Drunk driving kills people everyday, lets ban alcohol!
Not eating right kills people everyday, let's ban fast food restaruants!
Sweets are not good for you, see ya later Kripsy Kreme!

It is about FREEDOM!
if you don't understand that then no one can explain it!

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by ArtVandelay

You guys are full of excuses on why this won't work and that won't work.

Obviously most of you don't feel safe enough to not carry guns.

How do you suppose we make this country safer?

Why do you think people need semi-automatic weapons?(aside from the fact that you think its your right under the 2nd amendment)

You understand CT has an assault weapon ban in place right?

[Minister_of_Information]

We can't trust the citizenry with arms, but not trusting the perpetual good intentions of the Federal Government is crazy talk.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

[gatormoe1]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

You understand CT has an assault weapon ban in place right?

LMAO!

Don't ruin their arguments man.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by gatormoe1

LMAO!

Don't ruin their arguments man.

This is nothing more than a long time liberal agenda. They just feel it's their time to pursue such legislation or in choppys case fiat

[bakaduin]

I am a conservative. I believe every reasonable person in the U.S. should not only have the right to own a gun but should own a gun.

When the call for banning guns came out after this massacre I thought about how ridiculous that was. As I've sat to really think about it I've realized there is something to be said for stricter gun laws. Not elimination of guns but stricter laws.

What is the purpose of a civilian owning a semi-automatic assault rifle? Hunting? For hogs maybe. Handguns? Everyone should be able to carry one. I'm all for banning large magazines. I'm all for banning guns where a normal guy can shoot 30 kids without having to reload. They disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

Now people will argue that "criminals are going to get guns". That is a ridiculous argument. The people doing these massive school shootings are, for lack of a better description, disenfranchised crazy white males. They get guns of opportunity they aren't buying them from the local black market. Absolutely the gang-bangers and hardened criminals will get their hands on these types of guns illegally but they aren't the ones doing the mass murder of innocent children.


Why is it black and white is my question? Why is it if you have to be either for the all out ban of guns or the "their is nothing wrong with the way things are" crowd. There is a middle ground.

[nawlinsgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Which is of course the great comedy as bad, unsavory people intent on getting then and using them are the only people metaphysically certain to be unaffected by gun control laws.

I doubt that autistic Lanza kid or the wussy Columbine kids would have the brains or the nuts to go looking for a gun in the public world if they couldn't find them in their parents' cabinets. There would be no shootings in those cases.

[gatormoe1]

How many mass shootings were done with an AR? Why not ban all guns? Whats the difference between going into a school with 2 hand guns as opposed to one AR? The argument, as it pertains to this situation doesn't hold up, at all.

Maybe there should be more laws in place to get one but an outright ban won't change anything. The drug dealers, criminals and gang bangers will still have them and the rest of the law abiding citizens won't? Maybe thats what Obama wants.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by bakaduin

I am a conservative. I believe every reasonable person in the U.S. should not only have the right to own a gun but should own a gun.

When the call for banning guns came out after this massacre I thought about how ridiculous that was. As I've sat to really think about it I've realized there is something to be said for stricter gun laws. Not elimination of guns but stricter laws.

What is the purpose of a civilian owning a semi-automatic assault rifle? Hunting? For hogs maybe. Handguns? Everyone should be able to carry one. I'm all for banning large magazines. I'm all for banning guns where a normal guy can shoot 30 kids without having to reload. They disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

Now people will argue that "criminals are going to get guns". That is a ridiculous argument. The people doing these massive school shootings are, for lack of a better description, disenfranchised crazy white males. They get guns of opportunity they aren't buying them from the local black market. Absolutely the gang-bangers and hardened criminals will get their hands on these types of guns illegally but they aren't the ones doing the mass murder of innocent children.

Why is it black and white is my question? Why is it if you have to be either for the all out ban of guns or the "their is nothing wrong with the way things are" crowd. There is a middle ground.

There is a militia purpose to civilian ownership of semiautomatic rifles: they have tactical utility in a paramilitary setting. Public safety concerns may outweigh this tactical utility when considering the enactment of regulations, but it does not cancel the militia purpose of these weapons.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by bakaduin

I am a conservative. I believe every reasonable person in the U.S. should not only have the right to own a gun but should own a gun.

When the call for banning guns came out after this massacre I thought about how ridiculous that was. As I've sat to really think about it I've realized there is something to be said for stricter gun laws. Not elimination of guns but stricter laws.

What is the purpose of a civilian owning a semi-automatic assault rifle? Hunting? For hogs maybe. Handguns? Everyone should be able to carry one. I'm all for banning large magazines. I'm all for banning guns where a normal guy can shoot 30 kids without having to reload. They disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

Now people will argue that "criminals are going to get guns". That is a ridiculous argument. The people doing these massive school shootings are, for lack of a better description, disenfranchised crazy white males. They get guns of opportunity they aren't buying them from the local black market. Absolutely the gang-bangers and hardened criminals will get their hands on these types of guns illegally but they aren't the ones doing the mass murder of innocent children.


Why is it black and white is my question? Why is it if you have to be either for the all out ban of guns or the "their is nothing wrong with the way things are" crowd. There is a middle ground.

Not in our political world. Want evidence? Read the last 4 pages.

The Lefties completely ignore the fact that these guns were purchased legally in a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in America. Laws that, if applied on a national basis, would be seen as a huge win for the gun-control crowd and an utter defeat for the NRA crowd. The right fails to realize that may not be such a bad thing.

I don't know how we make our country safer. I might argue that it actually is safer - on a per capita basis - than it was before and that you just have to accept the fact that things like this are going to happen. This was off-the-charts crazy and someone determined on that level to do that kind of horror will find a way - legally or illegally - and criminals will always provide a means for the latter.

I'm not a gun owner and probably never will be, but I do believe in the 2nd Ammendment and I also think MOI makes valid points. Problem with all of this is that it's so damn agenda driven.

[sappanama]

Originally Posted by chompalot

I didn't stutter.

Or make sense

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gatormoe1

How many mass shootings were done with an AR? Why not ban all guns? Whats the difference between going into a school with 2 hand guns as opposed to one AR? The argument, as it pertains to this situation doesn't hold up, at all.

the difference is capacity and speed, that's obvious. the more rounds a killer can shoot in short period without reloading, the more damage he can do.

Maybe there should be more laws in place to get one but an outright ban won't change anything. The drug dealers, criminals and gang bangers will still have them and the rest of the law abiding citizens won't? Maybe thats what Obama wants.

Yes. That's what Obama wants drug dealers and gang bangers to be able to kill more innocent people. good call.

[gatormoe1]

Originally Posted by rivergator

the difference is capacity and speed, that's obvious. the more rounds a killer can shoot in short period without reloading, the more damage he can do.

Well duh, but the point is the only reason he stopped is because he felt like it. Two handguns can kill over 30 people if the shooter is good enough. After that, it only takes seconds to reload and kill another 30. The argument for AR' being banned because of school shootings is ignorant and a complete knee jerk reaction for people with an agenda.

How many school shootings have been carried out with an AR?

[gator7_5]

Originally Posted by bakaduin

I am a conservative. I believe every reasonable person in the U.S. should not only have the right to own a gun but should own a gun.

When the call for banning guns came out after this massacre I thought about how ridiculous that was. As I've sat to really think about it I've realized there is something to be said for stricter gun laws. Not elimination of guns but stricter laws.

What is the purpose of a civilian owning a semi-automatic assault rifle? Hunting? For hogs maybe. Handguns? Everyone should be able to carry one. I'm all for banning large magazines. I'm all for banning guns where a normal guy can shoot 30 kids without having to reload. They disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

Now people will argue that "criminals are going to get guns". That is a ridiculous argument. The people doing these massive school shootings are, for lack of a better description, disenfranchised crazy white males. They get guns of opportunity they aren't buying them from the local black market. Absolutely the gang-bangers and hardened criminals will get their hands on these types of guns illegally but they aren't the ones doing the mass murder of innocent children.


Why is it black and white is my question? Why is it if you have to be either for the all out ban of guns or the "their is nothing wrong with the way things are" crowd. There is a middle ground.

That's great in theory and all but when's the last time the government wasn't given an inch, and taken a mile? Familiar with the Magnuson-Stephenson act and the fallout for recreational fisherman?

First thing to go is high capacity clips. Then, well, we need to just ban any gun that accepts high capacity clips. Then when a kid shoots up a school with a glock, they'll attempt to ban any gun with a clip period. Then, any multiple shot guns - see ya revolvers and shotguns and hunting rifles.

I'll be hunting deer with my replica musket before you know it.

Give the gov NOTHING if you care about preserving your rights.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I don't know that having an armed people has had a single thing to do with our freedom.

You got one thing right...you don't know. The British army did everything possible to disarm the citizenry in the run up to the American revolution. Fortunately they were not successful. You can get several good American history books at any public library. Good reading.

[Minister_of_Information]

Wow. "the security of a free state" = nothing

It's like the American Revolution never happened, and instead an international conference of the UN gave America its freedom. Yet Fidel leads a successful insurrection against Bautista and he's the hero of all mankind, and we are looking at T-shirts of Che "The Butcher" Guevara forever.