It's Official: Assault Weapons Ban Coming To Congress

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../lawmakers-to-unveil-new-assault-weapons-ban/

After the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook, the liberals now have the emotionally damaged public within striking distance. Thursday Dems introduced a new assault weapons ban, which unlike the 1994 bill, is permanent. It is also more detailed and bans more kinds of weapons.

Thankfully, the NRA with its almost 5 million dedicated members, will have no problem fighting off this infringement of our 2nd amendment rights. This bill won't do anything to stop mass shootings or reduce gun violence. The fact is, assault weapons are not needed to kill lots of people. This was proven during the last assault weapons ban, when the Columbine school shooting happened, without assault weapons.

Gun control only keeps good citizens from owning weapons. It does nothing to keep a crazy person with homicidal intentions from stealing weapons, buying them on the black market, or using other tools of death. After all, the Sandy Hook shooter stole his weapons. He then used many pistols to gun down the kids. The media falsely reported that an assault weapon was used during the attack, which it was not. It was inside the gunmans car the entire time. These facts were shoved out of the way to help speed up the process of getting a new weapons ban introduced. It's ironic because the new law would not have saved the children that day.

The only thing that would have saved them would have been an armed response. Who do you call when someone is threatening your life? You call a person with a gun. What is the one thing you wish you had in your possession when an intruder has broken into your house at 12AM and your children are 20 feet away down the hall, not even aware of the danger they are in? You wish you had a gun to protect your family. But more importantly, what is the one thing in this would that prevents and overcomes tyranny? The gun.

Please think about that before you jump on the gun control bandwagon and throw away more of your liberties.

 

Your economy will collapse this year. To avoid a blood bath, your guns should be taken away.

 

Who is going to take them away? Who decides that citizens are not responsible enough to own guns? Guns will always be freely available in America. This has already been confirmed by the Supreme court, and it is guaranteed by the Constitution. This is less about taking all guns away than it is about limiting the types of guns you can have. But, as we have seen, this is the first step down that road.

 

You don't need an assault weapon unless you're in the military or SWAT. If you can't defend yourself with a rifle or pistol, how is an assault weapon going to help you in any way, shape, or form?

Making them harder to get should help somewhat. I know a cold blooded killer will get one anyways, but it's not as direct so it'll take more time to get one.

As far as gun rights, I'm all for allowing citizens owning a gun, just not assault weapons and high capacity clips meant for causing harm to as many people as possible.

 

Who are you or the government to say what I need and don't need? That's starting to get into dangerous territory once you head down that path. Your argument makes full sense, and it's one that many honest people will tell me about gun control. Why does anyone need 30 rounds? Why do you need a rifle that looks like it came from the military?

Do we have to justify our need for any of our other freedoms? Do you need to justify why you should be allowed to criticize the government for policies you don't agree with? And many peoples answer will be "well guns are different because people really die". What about freedoms like alcohol and cigarette use? Deaths from alcohol kill more people than guns do in the US. Drunk driving deaths have continue to rise over the past decade, especially with young people. Do you hear calls to further regulate alcohol use? No. But using your same logic, do people really need to buy more than 24 oz. of alcohol per day? Why don't we limit the strength of alcohol to reduce drunk driving deaths? Do you really need alcohol at all? Of course you don't. And I am not for any of those things, but it illustrates my point. There are 10 or more things I can name exactly like alcohol that kill even more people than guns per year, that we "don't need".

Now, back to assault rifles. The standard AR-15 that you can buy at Wal-Mart or any gun shop is nothing more than a regular semi-automatic rifle. Nothing on the rifle makes it any more dangerous than a regular rifle. The adjustable stock, fore grip, and other features are purely cosmetic. They look "scary" is about it. Even with a 30 round magazine, is it really any more dangerous than some guy with a standard rifle that holds 10 rounds, but has 3 clips? It takes a few seconds to drop a clip and put another one in. Limiting magazines will not stop these mass shootings or reduce the amount of people killed in shootings. Mass shootings are almost always planned. A gunman can work with a 30 round mag or if that isn't available they simply bring more magazines or more guns along. The sandy hook shooter had 4 handguns. Magazine size has no effect on these crimes, since the act is premeditated and the shooter prepares accordingly. Plus, there are hundreds of millions of them already in circulation. Passing a law banning them will not stop a criminal from owning one, since the supply is already there. It will simply stop the good people from owning them, as all gun laws do. And remember, mass shootings are extremely rare in relation to all gun violence. Even more rare is the use of an "assault rifle" in gun crimes. Handguns are the primary cause of shooting deaths in the US, and banning assault weapons or limiting a clip to 10 rounds won't change any of that. Statistically, no one will notice any changes. The only thing that will change is that Americans have one less slice of freedom from the government.

My last point is that gun regulations will continue to get worse. You said you support the right to own everything but assault weapons and high capacity clips, but once those are banned and the shootings continue, what's next? There is always a next. New York state is a great example. They already have high capacity mags banned. Less than 10 rounds was legal. But now they passed a bill saying 7 is the limit. Really? 3 less rounds is going to matter? Soon it will be only single shot guns are allowed. When that doesnt work, it will be no guns. Do you see the hypocrisy?

 

Define "good people". Tell me an application where you would use an assault weapon (other than military or SWAT).

Yes I'm with you on guns in general, nobody will take that basic right away. We do need stricter gun laws to add at least one more hoop to jump through. If nothing else at least a stronger background and mental health check before being allowed to own a gun.

 

Good people are any US citizen that would pass a criminal background check. We shouldn't assume people cannot responsibly own guns. Most people are good people. There are millions of these "assault rifles" floating around. They are flying off the shelves. People are paying $2-3k for them and stores can't keep them on the shelves. It's extremely rare that one of these types of weapons is involved in a shooting crime. 2012 was a bad year as far as mass shootings go, and assault rifles have become the target because of their use in a couple of the high profile shootings. But out of millions and millions of people who own these guns, only a couple actually kill with them.

You said earlier you believe SWAT members, police, and the military should have these kinds of weapons. Why do they need them? They need them because they have to match whatever the bad guy has in terms of firepower. This is relevant to our gun control discussion for a couple reasons. First, if cops are worried about criminals having these types of weapons and they also carry them because of that fact, why should regular citizens be allowed to defend themselves with them as well? Who is to say that a group of thugs won't target a single home while a single homeowner is inside? Wouldn't you want to let that guy keep his 30 round magazine if 5 armed guys are set on armed robbery? Secondly, the ONLY reason we have the 2nd Amendment is to allow free citizens the ability to fight off tyranny. It's not for hunting, sports, or that stuff. It's for self defense from bad guys and the government. Keeping this in mind, wouldn't it make sense to allow free citizens to keep these rifles and high capacity magazines? An army of machine guns against citizens with bolt-action rifles and shotguns is not even. Let the people keep weapons that can serve the purpose of defense from the government or bad guys.

I am fully on board for the strengthening of existing gun laws, and for reform of our mental health system, particularly how it relates to background checks. Mass shooters are always mentally ill in some form. The best way to prevent these shootings would be to keep these dangerous mentally ill people from coming close to firearms. This means that doctors should be able to speak up and alert the proper people if they suspect someone could be unstable or mentally ill. Background checks should check for mental history as well as criminal.

There is a lot of common ground between the two sides. There are many specific things that COULD be passed through Congress now. But the far left continues to charge towards laws that ban cosmetic features and will not improve safety. Instead of pushing a ban that only affects <2% of gun violence, lets reform our mental health system and make sure insane people can't get near a weapon. Let's track down gun theft and illegal guns like we do the drug wars.

 

I don't think assault weapons should be banned, i just think they should make sure only suitable people get a licence - It just so happens that the people unsuitable to own them are the very same people who want them.

Have penis extension surgery, it's a cheaper and safer fix for your small man inferiority complex.

 

I agree, the best solution would be to keep ANY guns out of the hands of people that are unsuitable to own them. That means working in mental health in background checks. But at the same time, we shouldn't assume everyone is a bad guy and can't own a firearm. Sort of like the justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty. And don't need a license to own what the media calls assault weapons. They are freely available from your local Wal Mart. $600 last time I checked. Buy some ice cream, toilet paper, and an AR-15. Great place. And obviously you don't shoot guns because no one owns them just to look cool. If you enjoy shooting there is not many guns that are more fun to shoot. Don't be scared of them either, they don't kick much more than a .22. Ammo is more expensive though!

 

Bad people will always have access to guns. Those executive orders the President signed will help insure and make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns don't. Unless you are criminal or mentally unstable, you do not have any reason to be afraid of the government taking away your guns.

I totally disagree with your opinion of applying the innocent until proven guilty method for gun purchase. That is a totally irresponsible thing to do.