Ban Assault Weapons

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.

Please no stereotypes Rey. Just because you own a gun it doesnt give you an urge to kill someone.
 
Because threads (and discussions period) about this are always heated, I'll just share my views and leave it at that.

I don't personally think the ban is needed at all or a smart idea. Banning civilians from protecting themselves is not going to prevent someone who wants to perform a criminal act, since they already get those weapons illegally.. banning them wont change that fact. They WILL get those weapons.. and you're wanting to ban us from protecting ourselves. This I do not agree with.

I'm a very strong supporter of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". If you're going to ban guns because they were used to kill people, then why not ban cars to prevent deadly accidents?
 
I think what you need to do is, look at their rights to use guns, and those whove broken the law by illegally using them, vs the US numbers.
Then look at the rest of crimes and compare per capita

I think those numbers will be surprising
 
I read a good article on AR -15 hunting. The guy had some very reasonable reasons for using an AR over other styles.

One, the pistol grip is actually really nice to use compared to the traditional stock. Second, the all metal construction of the firearm leads to reliability and no rusting, whereas with traditional guns you have rust, maintenance, and they're not as durable. Third, the .223 round is powerful enough to take down a deer and the round is cheaper than others like a 30-30, .308, or .243, etc. It contains less lead and is environmentally safer than others too. :)

He had some other reasons in there.. he himself even admitted that he never loaded more than 5 rounds anyhow. When doing tactical training or simulation shoots, the higher capacity mag can make the action last longer and enhance the experience. Finding a 5-10 round magazine isn't easy either.

From what I see in the proposed ban floating around, the only caliber that will still allow a high capacity mag is the .22. That mass murder could have easily happened with a 100 round magazine of .22 cal in a semi-auto rifle that costs a fraction of the price of an AR.
 
The U.S. constitution has a second amendment for the specific person of maintaining a threat by the people against government tyranny. This amendment made sense for the specific reason that the country was founded out of revolt. Because the intent of the second amendment is to make government tread lightly, laws that already ban armor-piercing ammunition are anti-constitutional.

Some idiot news commentator said "but if the army comes into your house, there's nothing you can do to stop them". The truth is that if the government were to suddenly suspend constitutional rights for an emergency, it would have difficulty maintaining troop allegiance. See Syria as an example of why the commentator was an idiot.
 
That's nice Old Man, but I still think it's a shame that I must remind people that the same rules apply to a government and its citizens. That the second amendments sets up an "idle threat" that can only remain idle so long as it remains a threat.
 
Correct. The threat of civil unrest is the last check against tyranny in a system designed around checks and balances to prevent tyranny. That threat remains viable only so long as a large portion of society is perceived by its leaders to be armed.
 
Do not compare Syria to the states this is absurd.No army is coming to your house this is in the mind of sick people who are so paranoid it is not funny and the media for exaggerating this completely.
 
If the government takes avenues that are against the vast majority of ideals of US citizens, and they apply them strictly, without the peoples voice or ideals being heard or met, then yes, there would be unrest, riots, and, an army at your door.
In order for this to happen, the constitution would have to be ignored, and is seen by our forefathers time and again by various governments, and has happened since the writing of the constitution, and thus the 2nd amendment was written in, so the power would be retained by the people, for the people
 

Really? Did the people in Syria think that was going to happen to them?
Seems somewhat the same to most revolutions in history.
 
The 2nd amendment is forward looking. You sir, are not. The sooner any government is able to disarm its citizens, the sooner it's able to start enacting egregious legislation.

Let me reiterate: I'm not concerned about the army storming my bedroom in the middle of the night. But my children's homes? Or their children's? Or their children's children's? Britain's government was hundreds of years old before the American colonies felt the need to rise up against it. The 2nd amendment postpones the inevitable, protecting our political system from the ambitions of its politicians.
 
The second amendment is a piece of archaic trash that is propped up by rednecks and gun nuts, who are holding the rest of your innocent society to ransom.

All the proof you need is to look across the border and see how safe Canada is as a society ... because their gun laws are much stricter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

A democratic society is nothing to fear ... your leaders are not going to come marching up to your door ... even if your a hippy or a commie.

The unhealthy paranoia that the NRA has stirred up is typical of the sort of people you should be fearful of ... them.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Militia_M.asp?xpicked=4&item=mm
 
There is no way the second amendment could protect you from a tyrannical government. If the army mobilized against its citizens the army would win every single time, unless you are China you couldnt have enough firepower to resist.

How many Ar15's would you need to take down a drone or a tank? How many seals would it take to disarm a whole town?

Im sure the second amendment worked great when a standing army was as strong as the number of guns it had. But when the military has technology a decade more advanced than civilians even know exist its an apples to oranges comparison.

The second amendment will not protect you from a military gone mad. Your best hope is the dude gunning you down went to school with your kids.
 
No, that's just you. You already have your proof of why it's there, as the so-called Arab Spring is all the proof you leftist should need that it works.
You know nothing of strategy? In a citizen uprising, you use the little weapons to capture the big ones when they're poorly guarded. You rely on the weakened resolve of a military who doesn't want to fight its own people.

Really, some of you guys insult everyone else's intelligence while proving your own lack thereof. You call everyone else paranoid while proving your own paranoia. You project your own weaknesses upon those who you know have a strong foundation. And some of you are actual Americans who hate America's founding principles.

You celebrate when the innocent die because it supports your cause of social control, yet constitutionalists who follow the mindset of our founding fathers aren't the ones pointing their guns in the wrong direction. Not even dumb redneck constitutionalists who can't even name one of the founding fathers. No, instead it's people like you who embody the anger of that recent assailant, bursting out at the unfairness of society after you've finally lost your last hold on reality. Did your daddies not give you enough love as children?
 
+1
 
Dude, I ain't mad at ya 😛 I was just trying to make a strong statement of my position. As for army vs citizens, they don't go all-out-war because they can't. If nothing else, they need farmers and breeders. Instead, they attempt to take out selected targets. We saw how well that worked in Vietnam...death of a thousand cuts, so to speak.
 


Interesting how you respond to a comment about stereotypes with a stereotypical statement. A blatantly wrong statement at that. Guns just make it easier for a "sick" person to carry out their delusions.
 



By this logic we still wouldn't need guns as the second the government suspended constitutional rights we would have troops turn rogue against them.
 


If you really believe that stereotypes are a reliable way to judge someone's character or thought process then I feel sorry for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom