Poll: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. #46601
    Quote Originally Posted by TITAN308 View Post
    No, its about arbitrarily putting you on a list that denies you your constitutional rights and they don't notify you nor give you a means to fight the charge. It violates the constitution and I am not talking about the second amendment.

    No one wants dickbags to have guns, but don't just go Emperor on the population.

    Better to have 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man put in jail.
    Yes, it would be much better if the FBI would cordially inform terrorist suspects they're under surveillance, wouldn't it?

    It's like reality doesn't even register.

  2. #46602
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    I've never understood the jump from where we are to full on ban-nearly-everything like UK/Australia. Most of Europe has guns, Canada has guns, and while I don't agree with all their systems in place, it makes me wonder why folks jump straight to the worst-case.
    Probably because America is a very black and white, either or nation as far as things go and you either have something or you don't. People are smart enough to understand that and to understand that the idea of banning and disarming is the wet dream of every single overreaching authoritarian in the entire world. This isn't like any other country in the world, and their solutions are certainly not our solutions.

    There's no middle ground, just an either or that advances to one conclusion or another so it's better to maintain what we have as far as the 2nd, work on the shit that actually matters like mental health and societal well being than try to fight a fight that is utterly wrong to begin with but also is extremely detrimental to peoples' legitimate self defense needs. If the discussion wants to be had about what do we do with our people that's actually a conversation worth having, the gun control one is a catastrophe and pointless.
    The Fresh Prince of Baudelaire

    Banned at least 10 times. Don't give a fuck, going to keep saying what I want how I want to.

    Eat meat. Drink water. Do cardio and burpees. The good life.

  3. #46603
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    Yeah, you want to have fun with the Compromise Crowd, say "okay, we'll agree with some univeral background checks, but you allow new machine guns as well as removing silencers from the NFA" or anything else to get some rights loosened up.
    theres already a bill going through the system that removes them from the NFA registry. Its actually one of the most viewed bills in recent history. and meh to MGs. I can bump fire nearly anything semi automatic off my shoulder. its fun, but pointless.

  4. #46604
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosteye View Post
    I give Trump credit for doing the right thing and working to fix the loophole that allowed that terrorist to purchase those firearms.
    He wasn't on a no-fly list, I don't think the California guy was either? It wouldn't have affected those shootings.

    What I do give Trump credit for is not glorifying the shooter, calling him murdered/shooter/terrorist in the stuff I saw rather than refering by name. It really irritates me to see a mass murderers face plastered on covers, I feel it just encourages more.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  5. #46605
    Quote Originally Posted by Drutt View Post
    Yes, it would be much better if the FBI would cordially inform terrorist suspects they're under surveillance, wouldn't it?
    I guess for all their surveillance they didn't notice him buying those guns did they?

    It's like reality doesn't even register.
    Your reality would have us turn into mob rule.

  6. #46606
    Quote Originally Posted by Drutt View Post
    Yes, it would be much better if the FBI would cordially inform terrorist suspects they're under surveillance, wouldn't it?

    It's like reality doesn't even register.
    Watching people, with or without warrant, is different than barring them from flying or purchasing a firearm or any other penalty they may choose to add to the NoFlyFolks.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    theres already a bill going through the system that removes them from the NFA registry. Its actually one of the most viewed bills in recent history. and meh to MGs. I can bump fire nearly anything semi automatic off my shoulder. its fun, but pointless.
    The bill, last I saw, had like 2 people backing it. I'm waiting on my third silencer, they were never bought as investments, so I have no vested interest in them being registered, but I just don't see it passing the Press-Mob.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  7. #46607
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    The bill, last I saw, had like 2 people backing it. I'm waiting on my third silencer, they were never bought as investments, so I have no vested interest in them being registered, but I just don't see it passing the Press-Mob.

    Hell I would pay the $200 just to walk out the door with it, the 6 month arbitrary wait time because they refuse to hire proper levels of examiner staff is what kills me.

  8. #46608
    Quote Originally Posted by TITAN308 View Post
    No, its about arbitrarily putting you on a list that denies you your constitutional rights and they don't notify you nor give you a means to fight the charge. It violates the constitution and I am not talking about the second amendment.

    No one wants dickbags to have guns, but don't just go Emperor on the population.

    Better to have 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man put in jail.
    Good idea to alert someone that they are going to be monitored even more extensively in everything they do.
    What better way to catch them doing something illegal than if they know they are being watched?

    It could be something as simple as the gun shop saying: "Hey, we can't sell you this gun because you came up on XX watch list. If you feel this was a mistake, call 1-800-XXX-XXXX and ask for more information."

    Do people get put on there accidentally because they have a name that is spelled exactly like an actual terrorist suspect? Sure.
    Is it so bad and out of control that it would possibly block that legislation? Absolutely not.

    Try not to fall back to "denying their constitutional rights" and then give us the real reason you don't like it.

  9. #46609
    Quote Originally Posted by Tonus View Post
    Because it's so hard to control the spread of illegal guns if you make it so some people can buy them legally.
    So comparing UK's gun crime to European nations with more guns/ easier access you see an issue?

    Something like 50% of the crimes committed in Chicago are sold in other states, many in Indiana which has lenient laws. So the only way to really stop the spread of guns is to let no one buy them (or very few).
    As it is illegal to by a gun outside of your own state, you're presupposing that it's the lax laws in other states (though even Illinois outside of Chicago has easier laws) that facilitate this. It's nearly entirely illegal activity. So you're falling back to the "in order to stop illegal guns, we have to stop all legal possession", because eventually it may help.

    Unlike drugs, you can't easily produce guns in a lab in your garage or grow them hidden deep in a forest. Their production is easier to control. So banning guns means the big manufacturers will stop producing them and that will very quickly have an effect. Most of these other laws won't have a real effect because they'll be produced legally then at some point make their way into the hands of people who shouldn't have them (or into places where they shouldn't be).
    Like drugs, they can be easily transported from nations to our south that run tankers full of products under the radar.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  10. #46610
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Wait, is it the word "ban" that you have a problem with?
    Well yeah. Obviously. It's hard for something to be banned (i.e. legally prohibited) within a state, when it is in fact, legally obtainable. Particularly when there's tens of thousands of examples otherwise.

    Pro-gun advocates throw around the word "ban" incorrectly all the time. "Obama wants to ban firearms. Hillary wants to ban firearms. De facto bans."

    There are no such bans.

    How about de facto Constitutional right-violation? Does that work better for you? If it happens to a single person, it's not Constitutional.
    Sure, though that's really more of an opinion. I mean a Federal Court must have known the implication of their ruling, and one would think they wouldn't have ruled in such a manner if the outcome was blatantly unconstitutional.

    There won't be that many denials anymore because people in those counties know they won't be able to get one.
    Sounds like there are several issues in many of California's counties. Were they just waiting for the litigation to clear? Again, in my opinion, I favor may-issue, but certainly not a never-issue. Connecticut does it right, as I pointed out. Thoroughly screen applicants, and hand out licenses when everything is clear.
    Eat yo vegetables

  11. #46611
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinyc View Post
    Try not to fall back to "denying their constitutional rights" and then give us the real reason you don't like it.
    What do you mean real reason?

  12. #46612
    Immortal Fahrenheit's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Posts
    7,800
    I don't think people should have access to semi automatic weapons, handguns included. Your average dip shit person shouldn't have the ability to fire off 30-40-50 rounds in less than a min. Bolt action rifles for hunting, breech and pump shotguns for hunting/home defense.
    Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh. You touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.
    You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.

    Sovereign
    Mass Effect

  13. #46613
    Quote Originally Posted by Fahrenheit View Post
    I don't think people should have access to semi automatic weapons nor handguns. You average dip shit person shouldn't have the ability to fire off 30-40-50 rounds in less than a min. Bolt action rifles for hunting, breech and pump shotguns for hunting/home defense.
    Yet tens of millions of people do have them and somehow we still somehow hover around 0.003% death rate every year.

    I'm afraid the streets are not running red with blood.

  14. #46614
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosteye View Post
    One of the best things about Trump -- he really cares about this Country.

    Unknown to most people he is actually a centrist on most issues save a few - but the Media portrays him as dangerous and unpredictable.

    I give Trump credit for doing the right thing and working to fix the loophole that allowed that terrorist to purchase those firearms.
    I'm afraid you're in the minority on this one among likely Trump voters. This is not a good thing for your candidate to have said.

  15. #46615
    Immortal Fahrenheit's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Posts
    7,800
    Quote Originally Posted by TITAN308 View Post
    Yet tens of millions of people do have them and somehow we still somehow hover around 0.003% death rate every year.

    I'm afraid the streets are not running red with blood.
    Doesn't change the fact that most gun deaths are done with handguns, suicides and murders. Ban them, institute a buy back and start melting them down. There isn't a need for them.
    Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh. You touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.
    You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.

    Sovereign
    Mass Effect

  16. #46616
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Well yeah. Obviously. It's hard for something to be banned (i.e. legally prohibited) within a state, when it is in fact, legally obtainable. Particularly when there's tens of thousands of examples otherwise.

    Pro-gun advocates throw around the word "ban" incorrectly all the time. "Obama wants to ban firearms. Hillary wants to ban firearms. De facto bans."

    There are no such bans.
    Is it any different from the gun-control advocates that say it's not a gun ban if it's not a total gun ban? It's banning guns, it's a gun ban. An assault weapons ban is still banning guns, just not all of them. Selective Gun Bans still ban guns, and are obviously a big infringement on gun rights and purchases, if you find that acceptable so be it, but it's disingenuous to say it's not banning.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  17. #46617
    Quote Originally Posted by Fahrenheit View Post
    Doesn't change the fact that most gun deaths are done with handguns, suicides and murders. Ban them, institute a buy back and start melting them down. There isn't a need for them.
    You are certainly welcome to your opinion.

    Have you written your state legislator yet?

  18. #46618
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightwysh View Post
    As a pro-gun person, I was thinking what I'd be willing to "give up" to appease the gun control crowd.
    The safest course is ni shagu nazad.

  19. #46619
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    Is it any different from the gun-control advocates that say it's not a gun ban if it's not a total gun ban? It's banning guns, it's a gun ban. An assault weapons ban is still banning guns, just not all of them. Selective Gun Bans still ban guns, and are obviously a big infringement on gun rights and purchases, if you find that acceptable so be it, but it's disingenuous to say it's not banning.
    The distinction between a "gun ban" or "banning some guns" isn't terribly interesting to me. Again, the term "ban" gets thrown around by pro-gun advocates as a scare tactic, so using it, in my opinion, is disingenuous.
    Eat yo vegetables

  20. #46620
    there are many things I disagree on with Larry Correa but when it comes to gun control - he is always on point.

    http://monsterhunternation.com/2016/...a-human-right/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •