Obama supports new bid to ban assault weapons.

[frankenbeemer]

Ratbastage, I'm not asking you to compromise your rights. I'm asking to compromise on a specific issue. Gun Control. Not banning all guns, not abolishing the 2a. But compromising on what type of guns should be allowed, amounts of ammo that should be allowed in a single magazine. As stated, these are things that should of been taken care of 50+ years ago. If they had, this discussion and ones like it would never be needed. But unfortunately people see the word compromise and figure that means losing, and generally the discussion dies there because logic and rational get thrown out the window and replaced with rhetoric. Just look at our congress and senate.

Why is it that instead of simply being able to have a discussion its nothing but rhetoric? Why is it that when asked why you need a ar with a 30 round mag the only answer is "cause I can"? Why not just admit you got it cause you think its cool, your buddy has one, or simply you have some insecurity issues, or maybe just a small dick. It doesnt matter. Theres no legit reason to need one. If hunters and shooters made it all these years with bolt or lever action rifles and still got the job done why cant you? You still get your guns? Hell we went to vietnam with m1's, won ww2 with em. But you need more to protect yourself? Where's the logic in that.

Were not talking tools, cars, or whatever so dont compare them. We are talking specific guns, magazine sizes, and the control of how these and all guns are moved threw out the system. Which obviously has failed because people are still shooting places up, or using illegal guns in other crime. All guns start out legal, its only our own failing that lets end up in the hands of someone who should have them. And instead of compromising in order to get intelligent and concise gun control laws to help prevent all this from happening you simply hide behind rhetoric and nothing gets done. And it all just keeps happening over and over again.

Like I asked before. How many innocent lives are your guns worth? Because until people like you are ready to compromise (not give up, not lose) and do what is best for everyone and not just yourself this shit is gonna keep happening. And the worst part is this is going to start happening more and more frequently as our nation continues to spiral downward.

Aren't your questions rhetorical? The reason for the magazine ban proposal has little to do with reducing crime and is clearly a step towards confiscation, I wouldn't call it a compromise. This is primarily a mental health issue that will not be solved by gun control.

In the spirit of rhetoric, I ask: If saving the children is the concern, why not have guards at school? Why not compromise on that first? The president takes his guards everywhere, are our children less important than one man? How many more innocent children must die before the hoplophobes will recognize that there is no such thing as a gun free zone?

[sumoashe]

Sleeve, it is rhetoric when no actual reasons are given within a discussion. Simply restating history and the 2a is not an answer to the question of what should be done. It's simply an excuse to keep the status que which is not working. Plain and simple. I would love an actual intelligent discussion with an actual view point on a specific issue. Not simply a "cause I can" or "its in the constitution" answer.

And no I'm not a occupy kid. I'm 30 and though I do agree with some of their stuff I'm old enough to know that the way they went about things was doomed from the get go. But I'm also old enough to know that its movement such as theirs that will end up effecting a greater and better change to the world as a whole. Imagine if something along the lines of egypt happened in dc, calling for the expulsion of our overly crooked congress? Which honestly isn't to far fetched an idea. I was arrested for public disturbance during human rights protests. You know, those things you seem to care so much about. And once for punching a anti-abortion guy after seeing him spit on and throw a drink onto a young girl trying to get into a clinic. Turns out she was knocked up from being raped. So I have no qualms with that.

To try and start an actual discussion I'll give you my idea of what should be done. Then you can comment and give me yours. But no half ass answers please. Give me what you honest ideas are for fixing this.

For person to person: I believe all gun sales should be at least registered with the local police so there are actual records to follow the gun. With a standard background check involved and a wait period of atleast 7 days. And if this is not done you go to jail.

For dealer to person: Once again, registered with police, background check, wait period. I also would like to see standard pysch testing for first time purchasers. Again, you fail to do any of this you go to jail.

For ar/ak/ect style guns: Much stricter than other style guns. Must have a special permit requiring legit reasons for the need of this style gun. Whether that be comp shooting or whatever. Tighter background checks and pysch screening. This would include checking of family as well to weed out possible unintentional side effects. IE crazy brother, son.

High Capacity mags: Theres simply no real reason to have these. Not necessarily ban, but only for controlled comps or exhibition where these are given by and returned to the range/event holder. You can go shot em when you want, but only at these type of deals.

Should also require new purchasers to go threw training before being able to purchase. Wouldn't be a bad thing to have regular pysch evals, kind of a check up to help catch possible issues before they escalate. Miss a eval, lose your foid and your guns.

The main issue is keeping records of where guns go and to whom. Our biggest issue with gun violence comes from all that fall threw the cracks and end up in gang, kartel, ect hands.

Ok your turn.

[sumoashe]

Frankenbeemer, the guards at schools is simply a band-aid type fix. Plus in a already depressed economy wheres the money for the guards gonna come from? Figure you'll want a minimum of 4 at any school. Larger the school, more guards. Between elementary and college theres something like 6-7 schools in my town. And its only got a population on around 15 thousand people. Our states so broke their cutting most teachers pensions, down sizing staff and simply closing schools due to lack of money. Gotta pay for it somehow. Beside, isn't going to a full on police state such as this going the wrong way as a country?

[cale]

[sumoashe]

The other question I would really like an answer to is why exactly people need a ar's, ak's, and the like. Basically watered down military weapons. I get that their cool, I enjoy shooting them. But really, why?

Home defense? Figure a 12 gauge would be better, a hand gun more than sufficient. Both also would be easier to handle in closed quarters. The shot gun has the main benefit of a wide spread. Better chance of hitting the target in split second aiming situation. Why not a taurus judge? Or something similar.

Target shooting? Really, shot gun, pistol, standard bolt/lever action hunting rifle more than sufficient. Hell gimme a winchester yellowboy in 44-40 and I'm good to go.

Hunting? Again, the above applies as well.

Just really curious as to what your guys personal motivation is. Just really hoping for something better than "it's cool and I can". Not judging, just curious.

[Farbin Kaiber]

^Serious, are we back to that angle again?

[SmokeE30]

I'll stick my nose in here briefly to answer that question, nobody actually thinks they need an ar-15, these are simply things people want to own, have the legal right to own and unless that person does something to have their legal right to do so taken away should be able to own. Obviously a gun by itself doesn't start indiscriminately killing people, people who believe otherwise are obviously beyond arguing that point with. It's because guns themselves are not the issue and it's the actions of people that is the problem, responisible gun owners as those with enough common sense to see that have an issue with the whole idea of blaming guns and trying to crack down on guns period. I don't have an assault rifle nor do I think I ever will at this rate but creating new laws and regulations is a slippery slope and what could be decent ideas turn into the lawmakers trying to do to much. Obviously guns have been around for as long as our country has and it is the people that are causing problems like school shootings. Trying to tell people that this may be avoided if u just let us take away some of your liberties is obviously not going to sit well with the majority of people that can conduct themselves in a responisible manner as they can see the stupidity in trying to solve a unsolveable problem in a way that will not help one bit but will step on the toes of law abiding citizens only to try to correct the actions of people that don't abide by the law and the few sick people that do these things. I'm not a NRA fanboy or a republican or anything like that I'm simply a person that has a sense of personal responisibility and have yet to here anything that logically would call for any action to be taken on guns, and definitely not as a knee jerk reaction to appease a group of upset people that don't understand what they even want done.

[Exodus_2pt0]

The other question I would really like an answer to is why exactly people need a ar's, ak's, and the like. Basically watered down military weapons. I get that their cool, I enjoy shooting them. But really, why?

Home defense? Figure a 12 gauge would be better, a hand gun more than sufficient. Both also would be easier to handle in closed quarters. The shot gun has the main benefit of a wide spread. Better chance of hitting the target in split second aiming situation. Why not a taurus judge? Or something similar.

Target shooting? Really, shot gun, pistol, standard bolt/lever action hunting rifle more than sufficient. Hell gimme a winchester yellowboy in 44-40 and I'm good to go.

Hunting? Again, the above applies as well.

Just really curious as to what your guys personal motivation is. Just really hoping for something better than "it's cool and I can". Not judging, just curious.

Does someone really need a good reason to do anything so long as they aren't hurting others in the process? This is where the right to privacy steps in. As long as you aren't committing a crime you don't need to explain shit.

This is why I can't get a concealed carry permit in Maryland, because there is a stupid law in place that forces me to give a reason for wanting to carry. Simply protecting the lives of myself and loved ones against an evil man is no sufficient. But alas, our government officials can carry wherever, and whenever they want.

Before you start, owning an AR or Ak rifle does not hurt anyone.

[sumoashe]

Guys please, I do realize that a gun is simply an object. It's ultimate end use is defined by the user, not the object.

Trying to tell people that this may be avoided if u just let us take away some of your liberties is obviously not going to sit well with the majority of people that can conduct themselves in a responisible manner as they can see the stupidity in trying to solve a unsolveable problem in a way that will not help one bit but will step on the toes of law abiding citizens only to try to correct the actions of people that don't abide by the law and the few sick people that do these things.

My main issue here is considering it a unsolvable problem. No problem is unsolvable, only when we refuse to do anything does seem that way. This is one of the biggest issues with our country right now. We seem to simply bury our heads in the sand and label something unsolvable hoping it will go away on its own, or hope that the gov will fix it for us. Whether it be this, the economy, jobs ect. These problems persist only because we allow them to. Our own inaction leads to our own downfall. And nothing will change unless we are willing to sit and have these discussions.

I pose this question next. If banning only so called assault rifles and high capacity mags, leaving all other gun laws untouched, would this still be considered to much a infringement? This wouldn't stop these sort of issues, but if it means instead of 20 people dying only 5 die, would you consider this a fair tradeoff for giving up only the assault rifles and high cap mags?

It's the whole line in the sand deal. At what point do we draw the line? As for paying for others misdeeds, we do it all the time. Whether that be high insurance rates do to uninsured motorists, or bailing out the banks after commiting their various misdeeds. Personal responsibility goes beyond yourself. We are responsible for how our society is, simply because we are what make up said society. Think of seeing a kid getting beat by a pos parent in the middle of walmart. You can do something and possibly make a change, or you can just keep walking by and the kid will keep getting beat. If you kept walking then you are somewhat personably responsible for the abuse of a child, simply by inaction.

[rwh11385]

The other question I would really like an answer to is why exactly people need a ar's, ak's, and the like. Basically watered down military weapons. I get that their cool, I enjoy shooting them. But really, why?

Home defense? Figure a 12 gauge would be better, a hand gun more than sufficient. Both also would be easier to handle in closed quarters. The shot gun has the main benefit of a wide spread. Better chance of hitting the target in split second aiming situation. Why not a taurus judge? Or something similar.

Target shooting? Really, shot gun, pistol, standard bolt/lever action hunting rifle more than sufficient. Hell gimme a winchester yellowboy in 44-40 and I'm good to go.

Hunting? Again, the above applies as well.

Just really curious as to what your guys personal motivation is. Just really hoping for something better than "it's cool and I can". Not judging, just curious.

I don't get why people exactly need Lotus Exige's or 911 GT3's - they are cool and fun sure.... they are watered down racecars and barely street legal, but why do you need them?

You don't need a M3 to drive, why not just maybe everyone drive Toyota Corollas? They serve the same functional purpose but don't go as fast and shouldn't hurt as many people. RWD is dangerous and kids every day from not properly using it. We should also prevent people from being able to turn off their traction control. It's for people's best interests and safety.

My main issue here is considering it a unsolvable problem. No problem is unsolvable, only when we refuse to do anything does seem that way. This is one of the biggest issues with our country right now. We seem to simply bury our heads in the sand and label something unsolvable hoping it will go away on its own, or hope that the gov will fix it for us. Whether it be this, the economy, jobs ect. These problems persist only because we allow them to. Our own inaction leads to our own downfall. And nothing will change unless we are willing to sit and have these discussions.

I pose this question next. If banning only so called assault rifles and high capacity mags, leaving all other gun laws untouched, would this still be considered to much a infringement? This wouldn't stop these sort of issues, but if it means instead of 20 people dying only 5 die, would you consider this a fair tradeoff for giving up only the assault rifles and high cap mags?

More people die from vehicle fatalities than gun-related deaths, is that unsolvable without banning cars?

Yes it's an infringement. Especially when NY "high capacity" is more than 7.

How many deaths in the VT shooting were caused by "assault weapons"? Your premise really ignores reality and assumes that eliminating those "evil assault rifles" will magically fix anything.

[dannyyisntt]

It's the whole line in the sand deal. At what point do we draw the line? As for paying for others misdeeds, we do it all the time. Whether that be high insurance rates do to uninsured motorists, or bailing out the banks after commiting their various misdeeds. Personal responsibility goes beyond yourself. We are responsible for how our society is, simply because we are what make up said society. Think of seeing a kid getting beat by a pos parent in the middle of walmart. You can do something and possibly make a change, or you can just keep walking by and the kid will keep getting beat. If you kept walking then you are somewhat personably responsible for the abuse of a child, simply by inaction.

I wasn't aware that I had a choice about bailing the banks out. Was there a vote I wasn't informed about? I am aware that it's my fucking god given right to own a means of defense and that you, the government, or anybody else can't make me give that up.

The white knight attitude you portray is exhausting. You can't save the universe. No matter how much we all hold hands and sing com bi ya my lord there will still be some crazy ass out there that wants to hurt somebody. Be that with a rock, tree limb or their own arm.

[cale]

Cause if there is a god, we all know that when man was created millions of years ago he made a point to ensure that a country to be someday had access to disturbing amounts of firepower to kill each other with. Or by your attitude, likely 6000 years ago.

'Murica

[rwh11385]

More food for thought sumoashe...

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/how-do-we-know-an-assault-weapon-ban-wou

The rifle he used, a .223-caliber Bushmaster M4 carbine, was legal under Connecticut's "assault weapon" ban, which is similar to the federal law that expired in 2004. Both laws, in addition to listing specifically prohibited models, cover semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines and have at least two out of five features: 1) a folding or telescoping stock, 2) a pistol grip, 3) a bayonet mount, 4) a grenade launcher, and 5) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor. The configuration of the rifle used by Lanza, which his mother legally purchased and possessed in Connecticut, evidently was not covered by that definition.

And the Assault Weapon Ban didn't greatly help Columbine High School either.


Using a tragedy to run up support for a band-aid that focuses on a tiny fraction of gun violence but greatly pisses off a community of legal gun enthusiasts makes no sense and is not based on logic, statistics, or good reason.

The disturbing part of this is that YOU think that YOU have the right to determine what people should legally allowed to own. Pretty high and mighty of you.

Also, drive up sometime and try to tell the people on the Southside of Chicago what they are legally allowed to own or what they do with it.

[Vedubin01]

The white knight attitude you portray is exhausting. You can't save the universe. No matter how much we all hold hands and sing com bi ya my lord

almost a perfect fit in the Global warming thread.

[Vedubin01]

Cause if there is a god, we all know that when man was created millions of years ago he made a point to ensure that a country to be someday had access to disturbing amounts of firepower to kill each other with. Or by your attitude, likely 6000 years ago.

'Murica

And it makes me so proud that someone in Canada gives so much concern for its country to the south.