Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Vyxn]

There is no reason for anyone to need an assault rifle outside of the military.

there is no reason for you to own a car that can do over 80 mph when the highest legal speed limit is 80
Speeding has killed more then assault rifles ever had

[FusedMass]

Define assault rifle.

ASSAULT WEAPONS

In 1994, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law a ban on some semi-automatic rifles and handguns that were deemed "assault weapons." Defining the term was tricky then and remains controversial today.

Under that now-expired law, some new guns were banned by name, including the Uzi, the AK-47 and the Colt AR-15, which is similar to the military's standard issue M16.

The law also covered some other semi-automatic rifles that are used with detachable magazines — devices that hold ammunition and feed the bullets into the firing chamber automatically. Such rifles were banned only if they had two or more additional characteristics listed in the law, such as a folding stock or a pistol grip.

Guns already sold to buyers before the ban were exempt and could be resold. Meanwhile, manufacturers skirted the ban by producing similar guns under new names or making minor design changes, such as removing a bayonet mount.

Obama says he wants Congress to ban what he calls "military-style assault weapons," but he hasn't defined the term, so it's unclear which guns would be covered. He describes his plan as reinstating and strengthening the 1994 assault weapon law.

That 1994 law, however, wouldn't have covered the military-looking Bushmaster .223 rifles used in the Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., shootings, had it still been in place in 2012. The old law did apply to another aspect of those shootings — high-capacity magazines.

Why would a person use an assault weapon? They are considered by some people to be fun to shoot; they can be used for hunting, depending on the weapon and the size of the animal; and because they resemble military rifles they can appear particularly menacing when used for personal defense or home protection.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-...a-gun-glossary

[Laize]

that is why many Americans believe that sandy hook may have been faked.

No one with 2 brain cells to rub together believes that.

I had never even considered that someone might have thought that until I read this sentence... and I believe you may have caused a stroke in my brain by doing so.

[Deadvolcanoes]

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/man-sho...ool-in-detroit

Another example of why I support the responsible ownership of firearms. Personal self defense. In my opinion, it is their only legitimate purpose.

70 year old man shot two attackers who pulled a gun on him as he was walking two basketball players to their car.

[Wells]

there is no reason for you to own a car that can do over 80 mph when the highest legal speed limit is 80
Speeding has killed more then assault rifles ever had

Probably why we regulate the ever living shit out of cars.

[Laize]

Probably why we regulate the ever living shit out of cars.

It's interesting how we regulate them insofar as their risks to the buyer/operator... there's no regulation or restrictions, whatsoever, on cars in terms of their danger to others.

And, again, driving is a privilege, not a right.

We do regulate guns, but this gun ban in question will do nothing to make anyone safer and, as such, cannot be allowed to infringe on 2nd Amendment rights.

[Bryntrollian]

Define assault rifle.

A rifle with a selective fire component that is capable of fully automatic fire and is specifically designed for military operations. A rifle that has only a semi- automatic fire option isn't an assault rifle.

[Wells]

there's no regulation or restrictions, whatsoever, on cars in terms of their danger to others.

Sure there is. All those requirements to get a license, the various requirements for car function, those don't just exist for the driver.

And, again, driving is a privilege, not a right.

Since being a right does not preclude regulation I don't see how that's relevant.

[FusedMass]

It's interesting how we regulate them insofar as their risks to the buyer/operator... there's no regulation or restrictions, whatsoever, on cars in terms of their danger to others.

And, again, driving is a privilege, not a right.

We do regulate guns, but this gun ban in question will do nothing to make anyone safer and, as such, cannot be allowed to infringe on 2nd Amendment rights.

Again just saying. If the supreme court decides and they have banned weapons before. It would not and I repeat NOT infringing on your rights for the right to bear arms. Even the President has to listen to supreme court that's what he did when ObamaCare was being decided and they named it constitutional. It would be constitutional IF and big IF they decided to ban it.

Therefore there would be no infringement on your rights.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Again just saying. If the supreme court decides and they have banned weapons before. It would not and I repeat NOT infringing on your rights for the right to bear arms. Even the President has to listen to supreme court that's what he did when ObamaCare was being decided and they named it constitutional. It would be constitutional IF and big IF they decided to ban it.

Therefore there would be no infringement on your rights.

They are currently legal and constitutional.

[Ilyanda]

Oh god... your ignorance... it huuuuuurts.

The Bill of Rights are Amendments, true. They, however, have been there since 3 years after the ratification of the US Constitution.

A constitution should never be a fixed thing. It should change constantly with the times. The American constitution was written when slavery was still widely accepted. Our constitution (South Africa) was the freest and fairest in the world when it was written 20 years ago and I believe that we're barely scraping top 10 now.

Forgive my ignorance but I have to ask: Why would people fight this? :S It seems like a fairly obvious thing to me. Don't let untrained/unstable people own murder machines. I'm not even allowed into a firing range over here due to having been treated for depression.

[Vyxn]

Probably why we regulate the ever living shit out of cars.

the highest contributing factor in deaths that involve cars is speed but is there any regulations on how fast a car can be produced to go
A car manufacturer legally can produce a car to do over 200 mph and as long as it has the necessities to make it street legal you have the right to buy it and drive it even though it is against the law to even do half of what it is capable or doing

you can put a brake light and turn signals on a grand prix car and legally drive it on public roads

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

A constitution should never be a fixed thing. It should change constantly with the times. The American constitution was written when slavery was still widely accepted. Our constitution (South Africa) was the freest and fairest in the world when it was written 20 years ago and I believe that we're barely scraping top 10 now.

Forgive my ignorance but I have to ask: Why would people fight this? :S It seems like a fairly obvious thing to me. Don't let untrained/unstable people own murder machines. I'm not even allowed into a firing range over here due to having been treated for depression.

The US constitution has been changed a few times, when it was necessary. There is no reason to ban assault weapons, so it hasn't been changed.

[FusedMass]

They are currently legal and constitutional.

Current being the Keyword. Current. The supreme court had the option to hear this case. They flat out refused. I am implying if they did decide to hear the case. And If they decided it was unconstitutional ( A know a lot of IF's ) that would be virtually the only way to do it. It's not impossible. In fact it's very possible. The best part it would be legal (i.e. no government is not taking your guns in the darkness of night)

Even if you do not agree with it. You have to admit. It is accurate.

[Ilyanda]

There is no reason to ban assault weapons, so it hasn't been changed.

Again, forgive my ignorance but I have to ask. Why should it be necessary to specifically ban assault weapons from being privately owned? Who is even being irresponsible enough to sell these things to the public? :S

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Current being the Keyword. Current. The supreme court had the option to hear this case. They flat out refused. I am implying if they did decide to hear the case. And If they decided it was unconstitutional ( A know a lot of IF's ) that would be virtually the only way to do it. It's not impossible. In fact it's very possible. The best part it would be legal (i.e. no government is not taking your guns in the darkness of night)

Even if you do not agree with it. You have to admit. It is accurate.

If they refused to hear it, what do you think the message they are sending is?

[Vyxn]

The US constitution has been changed a few times, when it was necessary. There is no reason to ban assault weapons, so it hasn't been changed.

there has only been one time in history that the constitution has been amended to take a right away and we all know how well that worked out
every other time it was amended was to add more rights

[Laize]

Sure there is. All those requirements to get a license, the various requirements for car function, those don't just exist for the driver.

Licensing I'll give you. Various requirements for car function? I don't see, at all, how they impact the safety of anyone not in the cabin in the event of an accident. Anything that does is merely coincidental with protecting the operator/passengers (such as brake function).

Since being a right does not preclude regulation I don't see how that's relevant.

I didn't say being a right DID preclude regulation. It does, however, grant it status that warrants more scrutiny. For example, unless you can show that the benefits of certain restrictions outweigh (in terms of safety) not having those restrictions, there's no sound reason for such regulation.

No reasonable politician (or anyone, for that matter) believes the second amendment should extend to nuclear warheads for individuals. The safety benefits FAR outweigh the limitation placed on people. The destructive power of a nuclear warhead could place the lives of millions in the hands of a single person who might well be a psychopath.

Automatic weapons? A person could, quite easily, use an automatic weapon in a crowded area to mow down hundreds of people in a matter of minutes.

A semiautomatic weapon? The danger an individual is able to pose seems to, so far, have been limited to a few dozen a year (When it comes to mass killings. The majority of gun fatalities would still occur if all weapons available to the public were nothing more than single-shot derringers.)

This, I view, as an acceptable price to pay for what we need the 2nd Amendment for. At least when it comes to the types of gun available to the public. The majority of the American people do as well.

If you want to talk about controlling who can use guns? That's a different story entirely from what guns people are allowed to own.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Again, forgive my ignorance but I have to ask. Why should it be necessary to specifically ban assault weapons from being privately owned? Who is even being irresponsible enough to sell these things to the public? :S

"Assault weapon" is a term made up by US Congress to include semi auto rifles, with one or more accessories like pistol grips and collapsing stocks. Its a silly blanket term.

[FusedMass]

If they refused to hear it, what do you think the message they are sending is?

They refused to hear it several years ago. You are implying they would not take up the case. It was not recent and their are new members on supreme court. You didn't answer my question if that would accurate.