Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I tried very hard, but I can't think of any reason why a law abiding citizen would want to own an assault weapon. If your true motive for owning a gun is to protect yourself, why isn't a normal gun good enough? What's next, your own miniature nuclear bomb under the guise of "Second Amendment rights"? Where does it stop?
You don't even know what an "assault weapon" is?
Amswer. There is no such thing. It is a demonic term invented by the left to help them steal your rights (like "cop-killer bullets")
There are such things as "Assault Rifles", but they are select fire (semi and full auto selectable, but the weapons we are duscussing are semi-auto only, and only "look" like assault rifles.
THEY are willing to use the words assault weapon and few, if any, even know what one of those things are. This is getting more ridiculous all the time. I really think they are talking about semi-automatic and thinking that means assault weapon.
In a sense, yes. I think that any firearm which could be reasonably used to stage an invasive assault with the intent of killing as many people as possible in a short amount of time should be considered an assault weapon. People relate firearms like AR-15's as their rendition of assault weapons because they're used to seeing movies with soldiers carrying them in battle or while storming a building. The reality is that anyone could take a semi-automatic handgun and inflict similar amounts of damage as the shooter in Connecticut.
It's also not uncommon for soldiers breaching buildings and other structures which house large groups of people to have semi-automatic handguns as backups or even as a primary weapon in very close quarters. The short reload time (particularly the use of a magazine), the rate at which the weapon fires, and its ease of use or ability to be concealed should be considered as a factor when determining if a weapon is an "assault weapon" or not.
I think any firearm which uses magazines OR can fire more than two rounds in the time it would take the average person to run greater than 50 yards OR can be concealed in a manner whereby they can be brought into a public setting unnoticed should all be classified as assault weapons and should be banned. Also, a weapon such as a shotgun, which may or may not fit into my previous definition, should have added mechanisms to prolong reload time.
Any currently existing weapon that does not meet that criteria should either have mandated modifications performed to it to bring it within legality OR should be disposed of at no cost to the owner. We should also have a "Get out of Jail Free" or "No Questions Asked" disposal policy for anyone who wishes to dispose of a weapon.
Now, all the paranoid rednecks and neanderthal-minded individuals who insist they must defend their house from intruders with lethal force have the freedom to do so by keeping a loaded weapon by their nightstand. Any nutjob who wants to walk into a school and shoot a bunch of children is going to have to cache no more than three cumbersome weapons in order to get off more than six rounds in a timely fashion.
Oh, and did I mention that ammunition sales should be regulated such that only one box of ammunition per each household gun is allowed. Any further ammunition sales would be on a one-for-one basis where the individual has to return any spent cartridges and can only receive as much ammunition (up to one box) as the number of spent cartridges he/she returns.
In a sense, yes. I think that any firearm which could be reasonably used to stage an invasive assault with the intent of killing as many people as possible in a short amount of time should be considered an assault weapon. People relate firearms like AR-15's as their rendition of assault weapons because they're used to seeing movies with soldiers carrying them in battle or while storming a building. The reality is that anyone could take a semi-automatic handgun and inflict similar amounts of damage as the shooter in Connecticut.
It's also not uncommon for soldiers breaching buildings and other structures which house large groups of people to have semi-automatic handguns as backups or even as a primary weapon in very close quarters. The short reload time (particularly the use of a magazine), the rate at which the weapon fires, and its ease of use or ability to be concealed should be considered as a factor when determining if a weapon is an "assault weapon" or not.
I think any firearm which uses magazines OR can fire more than two rounds in the time it would take the average person to run greater than 50 yards OR can be concealed in a manner whereby they can be brought into a public setting unnoticed should all be classified as assault weapons and should be banned. Also, a weapon such as a shotgun, which may or may not fit into my previous definition, should have added mechanisms to prolong reload time.
Any currently existing weapon that does not meet that criteria should either have mandated modifications performed to it to bring it within legality OR should be disposed of at no cost to the owner. We should also have a "Get out of Jail Free" or "No Questions Asked" disposal policy for anyone who wishes to dispose of a weapon.
Now, all the paranoid rednecks and neanderthal-minded individuals who insist they must defend their house from intruders with lethal force have the freedom to do so by keeping a loaded weapon by their nightstand. Any nutjob who wants to walk into a school and shoot a bunch of children is going to have to cache no more than three cumbersome weapons in order to get off more than six rounds in a timely fashion.
Oh, and did I mention that ammunition sales should be regulated such that only one box of ammunition per each household gun is allowed. Any further ammunition sales would be on a one-for-one basis where the individual has to return any spent cartridges and can only receive as much ammunition (up to one box) as the number of spent cartridges he/she returns.
So, in your mind every firearm owned by a civilian should either be single shot or be modified to make it work like a single shot firearm. And you don't find this to be an extreme reaction?
As for your idea on limiting ammunition, how did you plan on dealing with the thousands who make their own ammunition at home?
Now, let's move on to the financial impact of your plan. Considering that every handgun, and most long guns, falls into one of the categories that you would like to ban, your idea would mostly shut down the firearms industry in the United States. Do you realize how many people are employed by this industry? Including people that are directly employed by manufacturers and distributors of firearms and ammuniton, as well as firearms dealers and gunsmiths, you're probably looking at close to a quarter of a million jobs that would be lost.
I can't find the link right now, but if IIRC the firearms industry accounts for somewhere over $4 billion in federal tax revenue.
All in all, your idea would financially devastate a huge number of people in order to make people feel like "something was done" in reaction to a tragedy that had far more to do with the perpetrator's mental health than it did with what he used to carry out the atrocity.
The real problem in these incidents is not the assailant's choice of weapon but the monster’s state of mind. In this case he could have done as much or more damage with a sword. Killing defenseless children does not require fancy weapons. It only requires a deranged pathetic nutcase.
Where the assault weapons are needed are in the hands of the people responsible for protecting the innocent. This guy should have been stopped by someone outside the school after he shot the first victim. I realize it is a dismal, and to some an unthinkable realization, that this is a dangerous civilization with just enough criminals and heartless crazies that one solution is a permanently armed population dedicated to protecting themselves and the innocent from the crazies. If anyone has a better idea pleas speak up now.
There are few dangerous weapons but just enough dangerous people that the rest of us have to remain alert and armed well enough to protect ourselves and others by removing the threat with violence if necessary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The real problem
