Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit
MatthewMedcalf

Why do republicans want to keep assault rifles?

I'm not saying its a bad idea, I'm for conceal and carry and protecting yourself. Just trying to understand the pro assault rifles side POV and why they want to keep them?

Report as

Guns of all kinds should remain
Our right to own ...
Guns don't kill people,
People kill people .
Perhaps if the gunman at the school
Chose to use a he-man sword
Maybe they would be trying to ban
Swords- If he would had used a car
And drove through people,
Maybe they would be trying to ban
Cars !
Besides - banning would do nothing
Criminals would still get guns-
Except the hard working folks
Would be left with little to defend our homes and land .

Helpful (8) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (62)
Report as
Little? Shotguns, hand guns, rifles, not to mention sharp weapons or blunt weapons.
Report as
O
I have plenty of shotguns , handguns ,
Rifles ,,
Once they remove one ,,,
Only a matter of time until I can't even
Go hunting -
Guns don't kill people -
Report as
When someone shoots someone else I really think they should arrest the gun instead of the guy :P
Report as
Good luck with that !
Bazinga
Report as
Of course guns kill people. Take your index finger, now point it at the guy next to you and say "bang ". Did you kill him? No, I didn't think so.
Report as
bradahh
McCubbin...if you want to split hairs here it's not the actual gun that kills the person...its the cavitation caused by the projectile fired from the weapon. So the guns aren't to blame!!! It's the bullets man! A bit ridiculous don't you think? My guns would never kill someone unless I made my gun shoot them. At the end of the day it is a humans decision to pull the trigger. Thousands are killed annually by drunk drivers. Trust me...in my line of work I see it WAY more often than gun shot fatalities. Yet our government isn't trying to ban alcohol... Questionable isn't it?
Report as
@ brad - they did, once. It failed because everyone was breaking the law and we didn't have the resources to keep it enforced. Does that mean that making it legal has made the inherent dangers of alcohol go away? Of course not. Like you said it's the human factor, but that doesn't mean we should leave open access to anything that could cause trouble. If someone's going to break the law, they'll find a way to break it, yes... but that doesn't mean we should make it easier for them.
Report as
bradahh
So instead let's make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the criminals who will acquire weapons anyway...? How does that make sense?
Report as
How many people do you know who actually use an assault rifle for home defense, let alone own them? We have several inherited ones in our home, but you know what is kept out for home defense? The 9mm handguns. Why? Because it's more mobile, more user-friendly, and more accurate close-range inside of a house (try aiming an AK around a corner sometime.) You can't carry rifles when you're walking downtown, either. They are really just for recreational value. Sure, you *can* use them in home defense, but handguns and even shotguns are more practical for that.
Report as
bradahh
Ok but the point is that the second amendment wasn't just written for the right to protect our homes. It was intended for protection on a much larger scale.
Report as
And we have organized militias. We call them the military and the police force. Individual citizens cannot go out and "protect" anything larger than their own properties, and especially not with weapons. It'd be chaos. We'd end up with thousands of Zimmerman scenarios. If that's what it meant then we really do need another amendment because obviously that bit is as outdated as the three-fifths rule.
Report as
bradahh
And if our own government turned our military and police force against it's people?
Report as
I'd protect my property with some heavy artillery, you ever heard of an M1 grand?
Report as
Dude, if that happened, a few rifles aren't going to help. That's conspiracy talk. Remember that the military and the police force are citizens, too. They're family and neighbors and community members. We're also NOT North Korea. Do you really think a few guys in suits are going to convince our serving soldiers to "turn on" the people they've been trained and conditioned to protect? That they're going to open fire on their grandparents and classmates? That they're going to do something that warrants your use of a rifle, without any provocation from your end? Be realistic here.
Report as
No the militairy would never "fire on the people"
Report as
@ bud - didn't we determine that you're 15 years old and watch too much Fox News? It's also "M1 garand" not "M1 grand." It also isn't artillery, it's still "just" a gun.
Report as
Yea
Report as
K kid, I would love to see you walk up to a soldier or cop and suggest that they're not trustworthy to protect the American people, that you think they'd attack unarmed US civilians. See how well that goes over.
Report as
bradahh
Kid!? I hope you were not referring to me as "kid". You may be a bit confused if that was the case. Man my comment was deleted!? This site has become so overly sensitive it's sad. Anyway, it's funny how the friends and family I have that are military or law enforcement agree with me 100%... We have this discussion fairly often and not one of them have ever taken your stance.
Report as
@brad - no, it was bud, and he's literally a kid since he's only 15.

Did I ever say that military personnel were going to agree with me? I said that your scenario of "our own government turned our military and police force against it's people" was unrealistic.
Report as
bradahh
Just because it's highly unlikely in the present does not make it impossible in the future.
Report as
It's also OK if your family disagrees with me. I've also family and friends in law enforcement and military, and then friends with family in such. My grandfather was a Marine in Korea, then served as a Lt. Colonel State Trooper for several decades. He sees no reason for civilians to own assault rifles. Neither do many of my other military friends. They see far better alternatives in other weapons, better suited for civilian use. But that's the great thing about our country - we can disagree, and it's OK to do that.
Report as
But highly unlikely scenarios are not reasonable arguments, and hold much less weight than imminent, more probable scenarios. You say we may need assault rifles (specifically, assault rifles) to defend ourselves against an errant government. I say that easy access to assault rifles will increase the number of rifles out there, thereby increasing the number on the black market for criminals to use. Which is more of a threat?
Report as
Sorry your comment got deleted BTW, it does get annoying for those of us capable of intelligent conversation, doesn't it? *rolls eyes* Makes me wonder how they programmed this site.
Report as
Sorry I'm not 15 and I've never watched fox in my life you ever heard of CBS?
Report as
@bud - pretty sure you're the one who was trying to debate with me on a similar question a while back. You said you watch Fox because your dad does. Anyways, you said "yea" when I asked you if you were 15. Make up your mind on your age please?
Report as
And this kid up here who's name is Quester, gives liberals a bad reputation^
Report as
And my dad does not wach fox and I never said I was 15 soooooo you are lying???
Report as
And why the hey is this an issue in your eyes? Is that all you've got so you turn around and commence with the Fox watcher rhetoric??
Report as
Bud, THAT IS WHY I ASKED YOU. I am not liberal or conservative or Democrat or Republican. I'm simply me, and make my own decisions without considering party affiliations. If you try and lump me in with something you're gonna get flippin' confused because my opinions on different matters do not align with anyone's set definition of any particular political group.

Fox News is, as Jim Carrey so aptly put it, "a media colostomy bag that has begun to burst at the seams and should be emptied before it becomes a public health issue." Their "news" is so opinionated, flawed, and unreliable they belong on Comedy Central. Try looking at the "statistics" they cite next time. When you do a poll that says "80% of Americans hate Obama!" but you took polls in only 3 deep south states, and even then you had to add the negative AND neutral responses together to get your statistics, I am NOT going to trust your news anymore.
Report as
Did I not clarify that I don't watch Fox?
Report as
How much more clear do I need to be? And I read I study the other day that says the amount of people that even watch cable news of any station is so small that the typical radio show has more listeners, due to the fact that there are so many more options on TV in this day in age. I mean if you wanna see people get eaten you can watch The Walking Dead, or if you wanna watch mindless stupidity you can watch Family Guy. Who wants to watch boring news? When you can watch all that?
Report as
Bud, you asked a question, and I was simply responding to it. No need to get all defensive.
Report as
Heh
Report as
Club---
Without the finger to pull a trigger
No gun will shoot-
Report as
Sorry man
Report as
@brad
Turn to your neighbor. Point your index finger at them. Now say "bang"
Did you kill him? No? I didn't think so.
Guns DO kill people.
Assault weapons, like the one used at Sandy Hook, the ones that discharge hundreds of rounds of bullets, are simply not necessary for citizens to possess when the misuse of these very weapons wreak so much irreparable damage .
Just the chance that by not having these weapons available might save the loss of further innocent life I view as reason enough to ban them.
The fostering of the need to be hyper vigilant against the immanent approach of some phantom military beast the next street over is nothing more than a ridiculous attempt to justify the "need" to keep them at the ready and promote fear.

Report as
Cars kill people also then !
And steak knives
And baseball bats,,
I know,
Lets ban baseball bats

Report as
bradahh
Phantom military!? Haha! North Korea is openly threatening to nuke us, in 93 members of the Islamic extremist group bombed the basement of the world trade centers, and 9/11, the same group, flew two jumbo jets into the world trade centers killing over 3000 innocent people! That's just three of the successful attacks that have happened on American soil. Lest we forget the countless attacks on American installments abroad, or the countless failed attempts. Not every military is claimed by a government. And here's a thought...how about I aim my pistol at someone? If I don't pull the trigger it will not do anything.
Report as
Exactly ^^^
| | |
My 40 sw
Has been under my pillow
For years - ready to go "
It's never killed anyone !
And it won't , unless I pull the trigger !
Report as
Our military continues to do their job protecting the citizens of the United States. But you want your ak47 in your house so you can grab it in case the North Koreans breaks in your house huh?
Use you registered firearm to protect yourself.
Report as
Yes, yes cars can kill too . But I think you'd have to admit the car was neither designed or made for the purpose of killing people. An automatic weapon was designed and made for the sole purpose of killing as many people in the shortest amount of time possible.
Report as
And that's why I have one -
And it's never killed anyone -
Any object can kill
In the hands of a killer
And that's my point ,
It's the hand and mind of a killer that kills - not the gun -
Report as
O MY GOD MY GUNS ABOUT TO KILL MEeglggle........
Report as
Marjori by the way automatic guns are illeagle, and with a double barrel coach gun and OObuck shot I could kill MORE people than an "assult rifle" in less time I don't see anyone wanting to ban those (except for the people that want to ban all guns) and further more if you don't know what a gun is except you think it kills people. Learn the history of guns know how they operate and shoot them and then come complain to us..... derp ._.
Report as
Yes
I enjoy skeet and trap shooting -
The only thing I kill there is time-
And banning any gun because
People decide to go insane ,
Is insane !
Report as
Bazinga !
Report as
Nicely defended and well argued as usual, Dr. Cooper.
Report as
bradahh
Well if I had an AR it would be registered as is every legal gun owners weapons. And no cars weren't designed to kill, yet they are still responsible for way more deaths every year than law abiding gun owners.
Report as
Thank you shinny
And ^ exactly -
Any object in the Hands of an irresponsible person can kill -
Are we to just ban all objects ?
Because of irresponsible individuals
Or madmen ?
I have lots of guns - most stay in my gun safe -
My Remington 870 stays out ( loaded
With turkey shot ) for hone Defence -
And my 40 smith n Wesson -
Stays under my pillow-
Loaded and ready to go -
Just In case I need it in a hurry -
Except for when my gfs nephew comes to stay with us - then the go back in the safe -
The only things my guns have ever killed- are deer - during rifle season ,
The issues are not the guns fault
It's the madmen who hold them.

Report as
Through out history, serial killers
Have used many Wepons -
A weapon of choice seems to me "
To be a knife -
Why weren't knives banned ?
In history - aside from war )
Knives are more commonly used
To do harm to another-
Not guns -
Guns are noisy and traceable -
Not really the weapon of choice
To a host of madmen -
What happened at those schools
Was terrible - and heartbreaking -
But who knows what's in a persons
Mind that decides one day, to go shoot up a school -
However it's not the guns fault-
With a little ingenuity ,one can make a gun - it's not hard-
Common in the 70's
A zip gun -
No one can change what's in ones mind or, what they intend to do with the weapon they hold -
It's up to the individual ......
Report as
Amen^
Report as
Unfortunately, we cannot count on people being responsible with their weapons as you indicate you are. And that IS the point. The fact that anyone would continue to be unwilling to take those most dangerous of weapons, that have recently taken the lives of so many, out of their homes when doing so MAY be the difference between the next wacko taking 1 or 2 lives until of 26 before he is stopped is beyond disheartening. It's your priorities that I will never fathom. I remember after Newtown, my cousin from Conn. calling me. A grown man, crying because his best friend's little boy was one of those murdered and he didn't know how to help him. It's heart breaking, really. Maybe that's what fuels my frustration. Obviously I will not change your views nor you mine. Let's leave it at that.
Report as
Cubbin-
Taking those most dangerous of weapons wouldn't solve the issue,
It would only fuel a black market for them .so wakos would still be able
To get them .
Report as
But the likelihood of a boy, for example, grabbing it out of mom's closet,, or dad's gun case,, or his neighbors house would be diminished. The odds would change.The accessibility would be much more difficult. We all have our priorities.
Report as
1 answer
But a gun safe
As I have
Problem solved -
Report as
Sheldon, making a weapon a higher price on the black market is less of a problem than making the weapon more available on the legal market. We have a black market for RPG's and sawed off shotguns, but that isn't a reason to make them commonly available and so easier for the "wackos" to buy them.
Report as
Thanks Quester.....sigh
Report as
Marjori if you took an AR15 and a 12 guage shot gun and shot them both, you would see which one is more "dangerous" and it wouldn't be the AR
Report as
Quester there will always be a black market for everything illegal. History has proven the more you regulate a item the more the black market increases for that item. Look what's happening with cigarettes and remember what happened during prohibition?
Report as
Gun control doesent work
Report as
Well ,
I prefer not to give any of my rights up as an American .
The right to own and bear arms
Is our right as Americans .
Many fought and died to help uphold
These rights,
So because a few wakos do bad things, millions who fought and died
Efforts should be in vain ?
Report as
Add a comment...
FunnyLittleFrog

They want political power and are trying to color any attempt at gun control as a personal attack on our freedoms by the other side. It's unreasonable.

Helpful (3) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (6)
Report as
Defense of a principle sometimes seems uncompromising. It is like that with abortion or voting rights. Just depends on which principle you are defending, and the Second Amendment is in the Constitution.
Report as
bradahh
Funny little frog...maybe you should look up the reasoning behind the second amendment. It might start to make sense. I'm not a republican, nor am I an owner of an "assault rifle" I am however a strong advocate for the constitution.
Report as
@brad stars!!!
Report as
Yesh :)
Report as
Right on Frog!!
Report as
Two thumbs up FunnyFrog ;)
Report as
Add a comment...

The second amendment implies the reason we should be allowed to have weapons to protect against tyrannical government. If they are coming at you with assault rifles, having just a hand gun or hunting rifle isn't going to help.

Helpful (5) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (28)
Report as
Shotgun
Report as
Excellent point- star
Report as
Yay!
Report as
bradahh
Exactly. I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand...
Report as
Gator, that argument has been rendered moot since the industrial revolution. These pretend assault rifles stand no chance against Apache gunships, F18's, M1 Abrams, etc. and they are not available (thankfully) to the common citizen.
Report as
I would still like to have something more than my grandmother's 22 rifle when put in a combative situation.
Report as
Of course. But that argument is no longer valid, it's now become the responsibility of our citizen soldiers under articles 91 through 93 of the UCMJ to uphold the spirit of the 2ndA.
Report as
Cal. Who are our citizen soldiers? I've never heard of them. Are you being sarcastic or serious. If serious I would be interested in your answer. I'm not being disrespectful.
Report as
All soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen in our armed forces are citizen soldiers.
Report as
Cal if need be I could make my AR full auto with a few file strokes on the sear .____.
Report as
Of course, and the 5.56 or 7.62 would still have no effect on an Abrams MBT or a F18 at OD altitude.
The simple fact remains, civilians accustomed to watching tv, playing video games, eating at Micky D's, and taking daily showers, would stand zero chance if they tried to go against the greatest anti-insurgent armed force in world history armed with the most advanced weapons science has ever created.
So again, Gators original argument is moot.
Report as
Caluvox, in all honesty, those citizen soldiers are working for the government. So if something goes awry in Washington things could get ugly. Yes they swear to uphold the constitution, but they are also sworn to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over them.

I do believe there should be complete background checks on all gun sales, and I don't think buying guns freely over the internet should be allowed. There is a local guy who is running an eBay type site for ammunition and guns. He has it set up so that guns go directly to federally licensed dealers and they will not give the gun until all the proper paperwork has been filed. This is such a simple step and one that can easily be added to any gun website. I do believe that regulating sales is the key, not the gun.
Report as
I totally agree with your entire comment, and that's an excellent idea.
I would only point out that the main point in article 91 of the UCMJ which follows what you stated about following orders is "any and every LAWFUL order" that's the most important part of the articles. So if a President ordered a General to fire on civilians, the General could determine if this was a lawful order. This works its way all the way down the chain of command, since all soldiers are sworn to defend the constitution we don't have to worry about a dictatorship.
I own 11 firearms including a real assault rifle, it's just as a veteran of three of our nations conflicts in recent history I get frustrated when I hear all this rebellion BS against the nation I and others have bled for.
Report as
Cal I'm just wondering how much does it cost to own a full auto gun?
Report as
I own a M4A1 CQBR (it was the type I used in Afghanistan) it has 3 rates of fire, single, triple, and FA. I also have a class 3 licence. The M4 was $2,300 US. but I've added a lot of toys so total value is about $3,500.
Report as
How mutch was the tax?
Report as
Gatorblu, I accidentally hit the report tab.... So sorry. Mistake
Report as
@caluvox
About civilians with "assault rifles" (what a vague term) not having a chance against tanks etc of the armed forces, therefore (you say) gatorblu's point is moot ... I think you underestimate the sheer force of numbers.
-- Enough armed and determined citizens can resist even a highly trained and far more well-equipped army. This has been proven, historically, many many times, and even currently.
I intend to keep that fact in force, and as well-equipped as I can manage.
Report as
Chato I love the militairy and I know they would never do that
Report as
Bud, your faith is admirable.
I love our military, too, and you're right it is improbable.
But, as history as shown, over and over. .. It is possible.
More possible, however, is invasion by outside forces. We have been invaded before, but luckily only by small forces and our military (and armed citizens!) prevailed.
We have a total number of about 2.5 million people in the military and paramilitary forces. But there are over 200 million people in the US. No matter how much equipment our forces have, they can't protect us all, by a long shot. We need to be able to protect ourselves and our families, too.
I don't believe in doom and gloom survivalist stuff -- but I do believe in being pragmatic.
Report as
Yep good point
Report as
Yeah, everybody, get your automatic assault weapons at the ready. You never know when those pesky tyrannical British soldiers might show up again.
Report as
Thank you , Caluvox for addressing the conspiracy theorists and attempting to teach who our trained citizen soldiers are supposed to be. And thank you for your service.
Report as
Automatic weapons are banned and have been for quite sometime. Just because you don't see a need today doesn't mean there won't be one in the future. And it won't be the British.
Report as
He said missing the point yet again....goodbye
Report as
I am not a "he", and to get back to the original question I am not a republican. I don't even own a gun. I do see the logic behind owning them. I do thing there needs to be a few changes on how they are sold like universal background checks, on every purchase. But we don't know what the future holds or where the world we be in say 50 yrs.
Report as
Nobody needs an AK47,AR15 or the like. They are unnecessary unless you are in the military or law enforcement. The risk of death of innocent children or anyone far outweigh the claim that they're" just so cool to have to say I have one." But we all have our priorities.
Report as
Why not put all your effort that you are putting into arguing this point into arguing for better mental health care. No one in their right mind has done any harm to a child with one of these weapons. Most of the people who own guns like those are either in the military or are former military.
Report as
Add a comment...

Honestly, after the whole "we're not going to work with him no matter what!" and "our goal is to make [Obama] a one-term president" spiels, I lost all respect for those politicians. They talk out of their hind ends too much.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (7)
Report as
Democrats don't like republicans-- what a news flash.
Report as
I'm not a Democrat. I don't really care if they're Republican or Democrat, what I care about is the people who got voted into office and then refused to do their dog-gone jobs because they were sore about someone else in their party losing an election.
Report as
Bro
Report as
You're awesome
Report as
Good point Quester.
Report as
Are ya talking about the Senator from KY Quester? I think it was him that said his goal was a one term President.
Report as
@dwilly1 - yep, Mitch McConnell. Though there were several that jumped on the bandwagon and followed his agenda.
Report as
Add a comment...

Because in the Constitution it says that we should have the right to bear arms and assault rifles are arms and we should be allowed to bear them. (as long as we aren't shooting people, then the gun should be removed as quickly as possible.)

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (9)
Report as
Ah, intelligent! Star
Report as
So why can't we buy RPG's or TOW missile launchers?
Report as
That's a good point cal. But I will bet you there are criminal cartel in the US that have them.
Report as
I'm a gun owner myself, I just don't like to see faulty logic or outdated arguments used, and as the automatic weapons ban of 1938 proved Bluetulips argument is very outdated.
Report as
Cal, you're really talking over my head now. You got me on the citizen soldier and now on bluetip. Help an old guy out. Please explain. I really would like to know.
Report as
Bluetulip. My bad. See I can't even spell it!! Daa
Report as
Never-mind cal. I just saw bluetulip is a name. Not having a good day. Sorry for being an idiot today. I will close the app until what little sense I have come back...hopefully.
Report as
LoL!!! xD
Report as
Thank you Cal. The voice of reason. I was getting worried
Report as
Add a comment...

I asked my republican mother this and she told me that it made her feel safer because if she had to shoot someone she could
and next time, don't bring up politics

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (5)
Report as
You should bring to your mother's attention this study by the Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182. It finds that a home with a gun is 22 times more likely to experience an unjustified shooting than a justified shooting. This alone is not a case for not having firearms, but it is a statistic every gun owner should be aware of when evaluating their need for a gun in the home.
Report as
I don't live with her
Report as
@CalTex
Just so you know, your link didn't take me all the way to the abstract. (I've had that problem with links from here, too, sometimes.) However, I searched the ncbi site for the numbers at the end of your URL and got there that way. :)
It's an interesting study, but it's from 1998, only studied 3 cities (Memphis, Seattle, and Galveston) for 1.5 years, approx.
The total number of shootings was 626 shootings. 118 were suicides, 54 were accidents.
-- But a Study sample of only 626 is not statistically significant. Certainly not a large enough sample to claim that every gun in every residence is 22 times more likely to be used in ways other than self-defense.
In those 3 cities, in a 1.5 year period, 15 years ago, yes.
Everywhere? No.
Need way more data to make that statement. I'm not saying that it's true or false -- just that it's not proven by such a small study.
That's equivalent to saying that based on votes in 3 cities, Obama should not be president.
Report as
Truthfully, I'm of the mind that all states should require a gun owner to pass a reasonable firearms safety and operation test. (Some states do.) Like drivers exams for cars have the rules of the road test and the "able to operate a car properly" test.
I certainly don't want guns banned -- but I also don't want them in the hands of ignorant people that can't be bothered to learn how (and when) to use them.
Report as
@Chouetteraccoon: Sorry about the link, and I appreciate your diligence in tracking down the information. I will agree with you that sampling is not the best, and your analogy with Obama's election is quite apt. However, I think there is enough truth in the NBCI study to tell us that guns are, at the least, as likely to cause harm to innocents as they are to bad guys for any number of reasons. And unlike some, I have no qualms with including suicide deaths in with gun violence since statistics show that by far the most successful of taking one's life is by using a gun -- nearing 99% if done "correctly". The same statistics show that every person who wants to commit suicide will not choose another method if a gun is not available. Guns are too easy and too final.\n
But I would say the two of us are very close to being on the same page on this issue in that I do not think taking away anyone's gun involuntary, or eliminating all semi-automatic weapons (whether or not they "look" like a military weapon) from gun sales, is the correct approach. I think guns should be treated like cars. They should be registered and those registrations updated regardless of how or where the transfer of ownership takes place. High capacity magazines could be regulated just as we require cars to be "street legal" in order to mitigate the chance of someone doing harm. There will always be those who go around the law regarding both guns and cars, but that is not an argument in favor of not regulating both.
Report as
Add a comment...

It's not just the Republican Senators, a lot of the Democrat Senators don't want to vote in favor of the bill.

Helpful (4) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

nothing wrong with assault rifles, it is the idiots that use them for no good. someone wants an assault rifle they can get one even if band.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
Exactly
Chances are,,, the bad guys who buy those gun aren't doing so at a sporting goods store !
Report as
Add a comment...

1. When they were banned before, the government could not prove the ban resulted in any change in the murder rate, suicide rate or in spree murders.
2. Republicans are not your foe in this, it's Democrats who don't want to vote for it. Democrats are the ones that aren't voting for an assault weapon ban; if they did, it MIGHT have enough votes to pass.

Helpful (5) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (5)
Report as
It's interesting no one has commented on your post Shiney....
Report as
So you are saying the dems aren't voting for this crap?
Report as
The public opinion on the proposed ban has shifted. The majority are against it right now. Neither Dems or Republicans are getting on the bandwagon for the proposed change as they represent the people in their district and they answer to the voters in their districts.
Report as
That's right, that's as it now stands.
Report as
Ok
Report as
Add a comment...

Unless you're in the military on active duty, what the heck does the average joe need an assault rifle for???? U.S gun laws are ridiculous.

Helpful (2) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (10)
Report as
bradahh
Look up the reasoning behind the second amendment and it might make sense to you.
Report as
The constitution is not be-all-end-all. Just like freedom of speech, there ARE restrictions that are necessary or else we end up in chaos and everyone can simply use the constitution to defend their reckless or immoral behavior.
Report as
bradahh
What reckless or immoral about owning and enjoying an assault rifle?
Report as
A crime committed by a legal gun owner is rare to nonexistent. Banning any type of weapon doesn't take it out of the hands of a criminal. Sure, the law abiding citizen won't own them anymore, how does that benefit us. I work in law enforcement, have for years, criminals don't buy their guns at gun stores, they don't go through the background checks from the FBI and ATF that are already in place, they obtain their guns illegally. I've never investigated an unlawful shooting involving a registered gun owner as the perp
Report as
Criminals prey on those that are defenseless, easy targets. Maybe if there weren't so many defenseless, easy targets...
Report as
@bradahh - my point is that simply saying "the constitution says so" is not always a valid argument. There are limits and stipulations, determines as such by our Supreme Court. Technically the Constitution says you have a right to say anything you want, including incredibly slanderous and hateful things. But we now know that there are limitations on that, such as hate speech towards protected classes. There are already stipulations and limitations on weapons ownership - full auto, sawed off shotguns, grenades, explosives, open vs concealed carrying - so this is absolutely nothing new. Lawmakers are simply considering adding assault rifles to that list.
Report as
Which is bull
Report as
bradahh
I personally feel that there should be some, and I stress, SOME regulations on both speech and guns. But not banning any kind of gun. If I want a to buy an rpg...i should be able to lawfully purchase one. Now there should be extensive red tabs such as psych evaluations and background checks before I could quite such a weapon, but I don't think it should be banned. as far as speech goes...I think we have too many regulations. I think some Americans are a bit too spoiled, soft, and sensitive. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.
Report as
Ahhh Wallimama- the voice of reason. Thank you
Report as
AMEN , Walillama
Report as
Add a comment...

AR means automatic rifle, not assault rifle

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (4)
Report as
No it doesn't. AR was derived from an old gun manufacturing company. They are NOT fully automatic, semi-automatic. I wish you people would educate yourselves before making fools of yourselves.
Report as
It's you that needs education, tell me, what's the old manufacture you speak of. I'd like to know.
Report as
And yes I know they're not full auto, happen to have a half dozen or so of its varient.
Report as
ArmaLite, ok you win.
Report as
Add a comment...
bradahh

The second amendment is to ensure the right of the people to defend themselves from tyrannical governments both foreign and domestic by forming militia to fight against regular armies. If it ever came to be that average citizens had to defend this country from an invading army wouldn't it make sense that our militia were able to fight back with the same weapons as their infantry?

Helpful (4) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (4)
Report as
Except that we don't have access to military grade weapons, so you comment is outdated.
Report as
How does that make it outdated?
Report as
bradahh
Cal you don't think that if there was some kind of revolt against our own government that there wouldn't be large portions of our military who would defect? How many veterans would stand up? They would have the guns, but we would have the numbers. It's OUR country not the military's. Look what happened in Egypt. The fact is the 2nd amendment was put into the constitution for a reason, and te second our government starts putting bans on it scares me.
Report as
Nor should we
Report as
Add a comment...

Because of the Second Amendment. Also they aren't "assault rifles". They fire just like a mini-14 rifle. They just have pistol grips and a collapsible stock. The only difference is cosmetics. They are NOT fully automatic, they are semi-automatic like many rifles. People supporting or pushing a ban on "assault rifles" don't know jack about them. They are using a tragedy to push their agenda.

Helpful (5) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
Careful, getting interesting so will be deleted.
Report as
It is BECAUSE of these tragedies that this 'agenda' is being pushed. You are absolutely right. There is no better argument for the need to restrict the ownership of these needless auto or semi automatic weapons than that.
Report as
You can call them "needless" all you want. It's sickening to use a tragedy to manipulate for your gun grabbing and anti-second amendment agendas. Next an "assault rifle" wasn't used at Sandy Hook. Bet you didn't know that. Finally, there's something in the Constitution called the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd amendment. It's NOT called the Bill Of Needs. If you don't like AR's don't buy one. Leave us law abiding and responsible gun owners alone.
News flash, criminals don't obey or follow laws. They will still have those "evil weapons of mass destruction". That maggot in New Town broke several laws: no guns on school grounds, underage possession of firearms, stealing firearms(from his mother) and murder. Do you think he would have cared about an "assault weapons" ban? If you do you are sadly naive. I'm sick of this knee jerk reaction leading to false beliefs/fantasies that won't work.
Report as
Add a comment...

Because the arms industry gives huge amounts of money to the Republicans. Banning assault rifles would eat into their profits. The gun lobby is very powerful... they have bought the republicans and probably many democrats too.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
bradahh
Hahahahaha!
Report as
It gives huge amounts to democrats too, except those that don't have good ratings from the NRA. Which is how free speech is done in this country.
Report as
The best democracy money can buy!
Report as
Add a comment...

There is not a such thing as an assault rifle that's the lefts coined term to make them sound more dangerous and scary

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
Nope, it is an accurate description of it's intended purpose... since the early 1940s, and the experiences of the Germans and Soviets on the Russian front, attempts were made to give the basic rifle platoon more firepower, especially for urban assault. Experiments were made with the size of the platoon, arming them with different combinations of sub-machineguns, GPMGs and semi-automatic rifles. The Americans did likewise with assault teams in the Pacific. The western allies took notice of this and recommendations can be found regarding this from as early as 1944. Research from the 50s and 60s discovered that most combat took places at short range, lighter bullets caused more casualties and were a greater drain on enemy resources, etc, etc.

The assault rifle is a compromise, an attempt to give a rifle platoon a higher rate of fire than larger caliber rifles, and better medium range accuracy than sub-machineguns. This all fits in with modern concepts of mobile warfare, where assault and fast aggressive action by a small force with superior firepower is favored.

This kind of weapon is designed for the military, and they are supposed to be both dangerous and scary. Any practical use (if any) they might have for civilians is purely coincidental.
Report as
Well the thing you missed is full auto "assult rifles" are illegal or very hard to get to say the least. The common miss conceptions are becase that rifle looks the same it's internally the same, wich is not true. The rifles available to the public are semi automatic, wich means every time you pull the trigger it fires once, just once not multiple times. With that in mind a person with a double barrel coach gun and double00 buck shot could do a lot more damage than an "assult rifle". But aside from the people that want a complete gun ban I don't see anyone wanting to ban those.
Report as
Oh and AR 15s are commonly used for hunting
Report as
Add a comment...

I'm a Republican and I don't. You need to rephrase your question to, why do the majority.....we really need to stop categorizing people.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (5)
Report as
I also don't get why it's such a big deal. If you don't like them don't buy one. Everyone knows it's the crazies that kill others. They also know that if the crazies want to kill they will find a way to do so. I don't get why anyone wants one of these guns but I do get that they have the right to own one.
Report as
Yeah but it's kinda scary seeing kids bringing semi-autos to the range. We were there testing out a few guns my boyfriend inherited, and some teens show up with semi-autos, I think an UZI and a couple others. Obviously hadn't shot before, but they were the "cool" guns probably raided from the dad's collection. We left because the stupid teens didn't even know to keep their guns pointed down range at all times. It's not just the Crazies, it's the Ignorants too :P
Report as
That's why It's best to go to a private range were those people would get kicked out
Report as
Quester. You have a valid point. I hadn't really thought about your point. This is why civilized discussion is good.
Report as
@ bud - not everyone can afford private ranges, and the few around here require you rent their guns and buy their ammo. It also doesn't solve the problem, just avoids it.

@dwilly1 - thanks. Yup, civilized is always good... it keeps everyone in a pleasant mood :)
Report as
Add a comment...

When you outlaw civilian ownership of so-called "assault weapons", you legitimize the idea that some guns are inherently 'bad' and must be outlawed. Then, all you have to do is convince uninformed people that another kind of firearm is 'bad', and needs to be outlawed as well. So first you ban handguns, that: "are only used by criminals and have no purpose but killing people". Next you go after "high-powered rifles with telescopic sights that can kill people from a mile away and shoot down airplanes". Next up would be "death spraying repeating shotguns that no real hunter would ever use". By that time you have pretty well gotten the population disarmed, so there won't be anyone left to protest the stupidity of outlawing Air Rifles and kitchen knives with pointed blades.

If this sounds like what our President calls 'gun-owner paranoia', you might want to investigate what happened to firearms ownership in our sister nation, England. It's called the technique of gradualism, and it's why we must fight without compromise against allowing that first step.

The gun-haters like Feinstein and Boxer want ALL guns banned and confiscated. They have said so publicly, and they will not be satisfied until they get what they want. What their motives are is unknown, but no matter what they say about their 'reasonable' proposals, their goal remains total disarmament.

Helpful (5) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
Stars
Report as
Well said!
Report as
Excellent points. Star
Report as
Add a comment...

I don't understand it either, Mathew.
Outside of being in the military or in law enforcement there is no valid reason I have ever heard to need an assault rifle, when they do so much harm. The argument about banning knives or cars is ludicrous . Why? Simple... Cars and knives were not manufactured in order to kill people that was not the intent. Assault weapons on the other hand were made for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in as little time as possible. All you need do is ask the question " Give me one reason for needing an assault weapon if you are not either in the military or in law enforcement."

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (16)
Report as
bradahh
How about to form militia to defend our country from invading or domestic tyrannical governments (which ,by the way, is the sole purpose behind the 2nd amendment)?
Report as
Exactly, bradahh!
You saved me the typing.
Our country is only 200+ years old, and so far, so good.
-- But other countries have faced invasion from the outside, and unarmed citizens were completely helpless against the invading soldiers.
--And other countries completely disarmed their citizens, and then when their government turned on them those citizens were completely defenseless. Historically, this has happened many times.
...
Americans are fools to think "it can't happen here".
Report as
That's crazy talk :P
Report as
So, you asked for 1 reason, MarjorieMcCubbin, and we gave you 2 reasons.
-- But, believe me, there are more.
Report as
bradahh
What I don't understand is how for over 200 years the right to bare arms has worked perfectly fine? Why all of a sudden is there such a major outcry for reform? Maybe because the media blows things out of proportion...?
Report as
Read my question again....I included MILITARY .
Report as
bradahh
I didn't say military I said militia.
Report as
Why "..... All of the sudden..." you ask? I hardly think the escalation of violence by automatic weapons i.e to kill the smallest of our children is an example of the media blowing it out of proportion....Good Lord. There is truly no reasoning here.
Report as
Sigh.
Report as
Ok ban guns see where it gets us.... derp
Report as
bradahh
There were many instances of school shootings throughout the decades before sandy hook. Sandy hook wasn't the first.
Report as
Yikes...
Report as
Fail
Report as
I rest my case. Sandy Hook was not the first just the worst.
Report as
The criminals carry assault weapons, and you want law-abiding Americans to disarm? Star, for the sheer brazen silliness of the idea.
Keep guns out of psychotic individuals hands. Do that, and law-abiding gun owners are safer.
Report as
Oh I don"t want criminals to carry assault weapons either, Shiny. But I'm sure you already know that... Unfortunately, we cannot count on people being responsible with their weapons as you indicate you are, or them getting into the wrong hands. And that IS the point. The fact that anyone would continue to be unwilling to take those most dangerous of weapons, that have recently taken the lives of so many, out of their homes when doing so MAY be the difference between the next wacko taking 1 or 2 lives vs.26 before he is stopped is beyond disheartening. It's your priorities that I will never fathom. I remember after Newtown, my cousin from Conn. calling me. A grown man, crying because his best friend's little boy was one of those murdered and he didn't know how to help him. It's heart breaking, really. Maybe that's what fuels my frustration. Obviously I will not change your views- nor you mine. Let's leave it at that.
Report as
Add a comment...

As I see it, the move to ban "assault weapons" and "assault rifles" is an example of using emotionally charged, and extremely vague terms to manipulate an uninformed population, and it is further deliberately fueled by the use of fear and misinformation.
The legislative definitions of "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are so very vague, that it does not clearly specify what kinds of guns would fall under that label -- if you look at the actual law texts, they have pages and pages of clarifying text simply because "assault weapon" means absolutely nothing in legal terms. -- In fact, the argument has been made that any gun that can shoot more than one bullet without reloading could qualify (under some of these badly written laws) as an "assault" weapon.
There is an old desert adage about "don't let the camel get its nose inside the tent" -- that's because once the nose is in, the whole camel will push inside the tent, and the whole tent will collapse.
Quite a number of "assault weapon" ban advocates have openly and repeatedly admitted that complete gun bans for citizens is the ultimate goal. There are already laws being proposed (or passed!) to ban ammunition, magazines, handguns, rifles, any auto-loaded gun... in short, for example, if you can't ban the automobile, ban the gas.
Whatever works, toward the end goal of complete or at least an effective gun ban, is apparently the tactic.
-- The camel's nose is already inside the tent!!
IMO, we are at a seriously dangerous point in our country's growth. Too many other countries have taken the road of full citizen disarmament -- and in every single case, it was a gradual bit-by-bit process. And when it finally became clear to citizens who later found themselves in jeopardy -- it was far too late.
All you have to do is read the histories of dozens of countries around the world. Millions died, disarmed. I don't want America to be doomed to repeat history.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
Excellent answer, as usual :)
Report as
Add a comment...

I've never heard anyone use a gun for self defense, most people use it for robberies and murders.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (4)
Report as
Then you don't follow the news, or your local media has decided not to report anything positive about guns. The estimates are about one million cases in the United States each year, that an armed citizen faces down an attacker. In the majority of cases no shots are fired or needed: the attacker scurries of to hide under their rock, and the defender does not become another victim.
Report as
Still, why do people need an assault rifle? It's going to triple the amount of deaths caused by guns, really. You could wipe out a business under an hour with that kind of weapon.
Report as
I could do the same with a coach gun
Report as
But no ones banning those
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer
Popular Searches