Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

automatic weapons are completely unnecessary for civilians. what the hell are you gonna do with a tec-9 or ak-47? protect yourself? hell no, your going to fucking light somebody up.

At 2/17/09 12:43 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

I'm thoroughly against assault rifles bans for a number of reasons. Namely, the bans themselves are idiotic, ill-conceived and written by a bunch of sissies that wouldn't know the difference between a barrel-shroud an upper receiver.

Anything guns that are fully automatic or capable of burst-fire,

That's not an assault rifle. The two criteria for an assault rifle is selective firing capability and intermediate rounds.

anything rounds specifically armor piercing

Umm, ANY type of gun fires armor piercing rounds. You see I could order steel-jacketed pistol or rifles rounds if I wanted. Armor piercing rounds =/= assault rifle.

or explosive,

That's good considering the vast majority of fully automatic, military grade assault rifles don't fire explosive or incendiary rounds. Now you're confusing assault rifles with sniper rifles and anti-material firearms.

and any large-capacity magazines,

Once again, they make large capacity rounds for every type of firearms ranging from the 33 clip for a glock to a 20 round drum for shotguns. This idea that someone limiting the size of magazines/clips is purely idiotic.

as well as anything that fires explosives.

Which aren't the assault rifles you claim.

I think that about covers it, but I could be overlooking some things.

You don't say? I was getting the idea you knew what you were talking about too!

I suppose certain sniper-type weapons could fit in the same ban.

Not in my freedom loving nation.

no one is gonna murdur you in the streets randomly unless you are involved with crime

In mother Russia, you deserve to die.

At 2/17/09 10:19 PM, Zeistro wrote: A bunch of bullshit about guns that has nothing to do with the discussion.

I'm not trying to argue assault weapons specifically. Just dangerous types of weapons that serve no practical purpose for a civilian to own.

At 2/17/09 07:38 PM, Achilles2 wrote:
You can use that same analogy to claim that the only cure for cancer is to kill everyone who has a family history of it.

So you're saying that guns are as inseparable from our bodies as genes?

I believe the idea of the second amendment was that: The writers of the constitution put in a referendum, an amendment, to give individuals some liberty and thus implied protection of firearm ownership in the event that the federal (or maybe state?) government became too powerful. This amendment was a means of defense against a possibly too-authoritarian central government. A means of rebellion, if you will, in case of a time of need. This was the reservation they put through to satisfy weary colonists (and now citizens!) of the brand new United States of America--who were very tired of fundamentally tyrannical (or at least, it seemed) government from near and afar. Sounded like a great compromise.

I could go on, but I won't.

At 2/18/09 12:14 AM, Battl3Mast3r wrote: I believe...
I could go on, but I won't.

Keep in mind that the bayonet was about as useful as the gun when the amendment was written.

But if people can own assault rifles, why not RPG's?

Based on half of your responses to this thread I'm not sure that more than half of you understood what the assault weapons ban was actually for.

At 2/18/09 02:17 AM, Psycho-Medic wrote: Based on half of your responses to this thread I'm not sure that more than half of you understood what the assault weapons ban was actually for.

And based on your statement, you missed the fact that we're not discussing the assault rifle ban, just the politics behind restricting certain types of weaponry.

At 2/17/09 08:13 PM, RussianGiant wrote: why does anyone even need a pistol?
no one is gonna murdur you in the streets randomly unless you are involved with crime or has done a shitload of unfair things to someone for no reason. and if there is a gunfight. say you are in a street, hiding behind 2 cars, gangsters are shooting at each other from both sides, shooting your pistol wont do anything but attract their fire on you. seriously, the gun businesses have been corrupt and still are by selling pistols to gangsters (since hunters arent that populous in the area).

Pistols are great for home defense, or self defense.

Depending on the actual tactical situation, I'd rather have a pistol than a rifle or a shotgun for self defense.

At 2/18/09 12:27 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

At 2/18/09 12:14 AM, Battl3Mast3r wrote: I believe...
I could go on, but I won't.

Keep in mind that the bayonet was about as useful as the gun when the amendment was written.

But if people can own assault rifles, why not RPG's?

Now you're getting ridiculous. There's a huge difference between the two.

At 2/17/09 11:12 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: BAWWWWWWWW

No you're not. What you're trying to do is enforce your ignornat and misguided notions of gun control on the populace. It's funny really, I shatter every feeble prerequisite you put forth as an "assault rifle" and you say I'm talking about bullshit that has nothing to do with guns.

The fact of the matter is, the government and any Khmer-Rouge minded individuals have no authority to supercede the second amendment. The problem with these assault rifles bans is as I said, they're absurd and arbitrary designed only to desensitive the population for when they really do try to ban every type of firearm. Assault rifles to begin with are only used in 0.02% of violent crimes!

At 2/17/09 04:58 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 2/17/09 06:49 AM, wildfire4461 wrote: Then again if there is something like a Illuminati New World Order takeover or large scale riots here you'll definitely want one.

Consiervatives keep telling me that but aren't the people who'd do that on their side?

Ready for more stuff from the TFHB?
The're IS NO sides. They control both (and the 2 main parties). There's only 2 sides to us regular people.

Well saying that killed a couple dozen of my brain cells.

At 2/17/09 10:19 PM, Zeistro wrote: I'm thoroughly against assault rifles bans for a number of reasons. Namely, the bans themselves are idiotic, ill-conceived and written by a bunch of sissies that wouldn't know the difference between a barrel-shroud an upper receiver.

So because Congressmen, Senators, and the President aren't all gun experts, anything mentioning guns should not ever arise in Congress?

Even you have to admit that banning assault weapons led to a decline in crime using Assault Weapons. The Department of Justice's 2004 study revealed that. The ban may be able to be mocked and it may be able for gun experts to get around, but the majority of people using guns in their crimes aren't even close to being gun experts, and would have no clue about how to get around a ban.

At 2/17/09 11:14 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 2/17/09 07:38 PM, Achilles2 wrote:
You can use that same analogy to claim that the only cure for cancer is to kill everyone who has a family history of it.

So you're saying that guns are as inseparable from our bodies as genes?

In this nation, yes.

At 2/18/09 04:42 AM, Nosferatu-of-Worms wrote: Now you're getting ridiculous. There's a huge difference between the two.

And there's a huge difference between an assault rifle and a pistol. Clearly, though, I was making a point that somewhere a line needs to be drawn on the type of arms a person can own. So why is it on that side of assault rifles? No one has actually answered the question, yet: What is the point of owning an assault rifle for reasons other than as a collectors item/hobby?

At 2/18/09 06:11 AM, Zeistro wrote:

At 2/17/09 11:12 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: BAWWWWWWWW

No you're not. What you're trying to do is enforce your ignornat and misguided notions of gun control on the populace. It's funny really, I shatter every feeble prerequisite you put forth as an "assault rifle" and you say I'm talking about bullshit that has nothing to do with guns.

1) I wasn't listing "just" assault rifles. I was listing potential types of "arms" and ammunitions for discussion.
2) I'm not trying to enforce any ignorant and misguided notions. I'm trying to discuss them. Hell. I'm still deciding how I feel on the issue, I believe in gun rights, but no one has clearly explained any reason a private individual should have an assault rifle, or put forth an argument that stems beyond "but the 2nd amendment". The constitution has exceptions. I started out by discussing exceptions to free speech. Clearly, the patriot act circumvented the due process clause. The constitution has exceptions
3) Assault rifles are used in 0.2% of violent crimes. But they also aren't common. What percent of privately owned guns are assault rifles? I mean, hypothetically, anthrax is used in 0.00000000001% of violent crimes in the US, but it's still illegal.

The fact of the matter is, the government and any Khmer-Rouge minded individuals have no authority to supercede the second amendment

Did you read the original post? I was pointing out exceptions to the more important amendment of free speech. If the 1st amendment can have exceptions, why can't the 2nd?

Also: Does "the right to bear arms" mean all types of arms?

At 2/18/09 06:11 AM, Zeistro wrote: Assault rifles to begin with are only used in 0.02% of violent crimes!

And even if it still was only .02% of all violent crimes, that's still .02% too many and something needs to be done about it.

But the number was far larger than .02% in 1993, before the ban was drafted up, in part because "assault rifles" wasn't the only thing being banned, but large-capacity magazines were, too. They actually accounted for 8% of violent crimes. Large-capacity magazines were used in 14%-26% of all gun crimes. Gun crimes dropped anywhere from 17%-72% in places where the Department of Justice studied.

According to another Department of Justice study, murders committed using guns dropped by 11% after the ban was implemented.

At 2/18/09 09:08 AM, Achilles2 wrote: According to another Department of Justice study, murders committed using guns dropped by 11% after the ban was implemented.

To be fair, I would be caution using correlative data. The state of the economy may be more responsible for that at that time.

I've also pointed out that most crimes aren't done with assault type weapons due to the almost inability to conceal them. I have mentioned nothing on the second ammendment, though for the most part that it is concern here since it does have to deal with the topic.

Most of the times these weapons are collected and used in hobbies. Should we not ban fast cars, since it gives people the idea of "hey my car can go this speed why no try it out" and all of a sudden there's a accident on a highway or a kid getting off the school bus on a country road is hit. Though most accidents take place in four way intersections?

Should we not ban cigarettes due to the fact that secondhand smoke can cause cancer?

Well lets switch it around, maybe we should look at the things people want to legalize.

Gay marriage, no health risks there or danger to society, yet its legalized?

Marijuana, there are health risks involved here, but yet so are there with cigarettes and alcohol, yet those are legal?

Also, should we sue alcohol companies every time theres a drunk driving accident or someone is killed due to another person being intoxicated or the person intoxicated is killed? Should we sue Tobacco companies due to people dying from lung cancer, yet that person knew the risks and still chose to smoke or a person is killed from secondhand smoke?

The thing that needs to be taught is responsibility, not banning everything once it becomes a danger. Kids who shoot people are generally kids living in unstable situations in which neither parent feels responisble enough to take care of their family and only show negligence to a growing problem. Also people who grow up to shoot people, are also kids from similar households, the only thing is that they didn't get the idea until it built up into an uncontrollable problem.

What needs to be taught at a young age is responisbility. So that way when kids grow up they feel responsible for their actions, the only people that end up killing someone is a person who wasn't taught responisibility and good morals.

At 2/18/09 08:56 AM, Achilles2 wrote:
In this nation, yes.

Well then fuck this nation.

as we've seen here in Canada with our long gun registry...3 billion dollars spent & it hasn't solved anything.
We have some of the most restrictive rules for legal handgun ownership, & it has done nothing that I can see. There are constant newspaper articles on gang shootings murders etc. in most of our larger cities & most if not all of these crimes...unregistered illegal guns, & most of those guns, are handguns.

Its been said thousands of times , has been shown to be flawed time after time...but still the political types attempting to woo favor from the voting public stands up & hands us another "Gun Program" that's going to solve our gun problems...& it FAILS !

Gun control IMO ,should be " the ability to hit your target "consistantly & accurately <period>
Having regestry for guns may make it easier to find the owners of stolen guns, but what deterent does it actually serve? anyone?

I wonder if controlling guns costs more than the profit that is made from selling them.

At 2/18/09 09:22 AM, Nosferatu-of-Worms wrote: Most of the times these weapons are collected and used in hobbies. Should we not ban fast cars

Actually, they do restrict engine size and many speed enhancement

Should we not ban cigarettes due to the fact that secondhand smoke can cause cancer?

It's headed that way.

Gay marriage, no health risks there or danger to society, yet its legalized?

Wait. What? It's legalized? News to me.

Also, should we sue alcohol companies every time theres a drunk driving accident

Bartenders, actually.

So why draw the line on the far side of assault rifles. Yes, they're collected as a hobby, but then why not RPG's or landmines? The same logic goes that if people are responsible, then they could have atom bombs. I know I'm escalating massively, but the point is that a line gets drawn somewhere. So why present the risk of allowing people to own something that serves no purpose but killing people just for the sake of hobby?

An assault weapons ban is a bad idea, and there are a number of reasons that this is true.

First and foremost, it defeats the purpose of the second amendment.

The founding fathers' goals in drafting the second amendment were to provide the citizenry with a means to defend itself in the event that:

A. The government became a tyrrany (something they were familiar with) and needed to be overthrown, or

B. The homeland was invaded and required a last line of defense (something else they were familiar with).

C. Any citizen needed to lawful defend him/herself for any reason against predators of the two or four legged kind.

I'll go through the specific aims and explain how they relate to 'assault' style weapons in the modern day:

A. The government becomes a tyrrany and needs to be overthrown:

Per Heller v. the District of Columbia, the populous needs to have access to arms equivalent to what an average patrol officer or foot soldier might be expected to carry. These would be arms up to and including a semi-automatic battle rifle, like an AR-15, which many officers carry in the trunks of their vehicles now.

Such a rifle is superior to a hunting rifle in combat because it has a higher magazine capacity, is more resistant to wear, tear and neglect, and can engage targets at ranges varying from contact distance to several hundred meters with greater versatility than what a deer gun could.

How could a citizen, so armed, stand a chance against a hypothetical, tyrranical US government with access to bombs, nukes, planes, tanks, et cetera?

The British probably made the same claim about the colonies in the 1700s, but the technologies they were talking about then were "a ragtag bunch of untrained bumpkins" versus a regimented military of hundreds or thousands of men, marching in formation.

Similarly, we Americans (and the others before us) have underestimated the challenges involved with fighting indinginous peoples from Vietnam to Afghanistan.

Planes, tanks, and bombs become much less relevant when you're talking about fighting against a population of 150 - 300 million citizens, each armed with a rifle. The overwhelming manpower and firepower would be enough to give any government pause - the US government in particular because we would already be 'behind their lines' and in prime position to strike at the seat of government.

...The first step on the road to tyrrany is to disarm the public. So long as the public is armed with weapons that they could reasonably use to resist the government (and assault rifles are such weapons), the government must fear - and listen to - its people, because they possess the ability to remove it by force if necessary.

Once the people can no longer remove the government by force, the government is free to oppress as it pleases. Power will remain with the people so long as effective weapons do.

When someone talks about an assault weapons ban, what they're talking about is consolidating power in the hands of government and taking true choice away from the citizenry.

B. Invasion of the homeland -

After WWII, a Japanese Admiral was asked why the Japanese did not simply push east and invade the west coast of the United States after the US fleet was decimated at Pearl Harbor.

The reason that he cited was quagmire that the Japanese would have encountered there. The Japanese knew that American had an armed citizenry, and that every home they passed was a potential gun nest from which snipers and riflemen would be killing their troops. They felt that it would be a waste of resources to invade at that time.

Consequently, countless American lives were probably saved just because their homes had guns in them, and because of our reputation as a gun owning citizenry.

For this reason, armed citizens are an important part of our national defense. The more armed citizens, and the better armed they are, the better.

C. A battle rifle is not the best choice of firearm when considering defense against home invasion. Depending on the context, a handgun or (in some situations) a shotgun would be much more suitable.

However, if you have a breakdown of order (similar to what happened during Hurricane Katrina, or what you might expect in an economic collapse), a battle rifle with detachable high capacity ( 20 - 30 rd.) magazines becomes a much more attractive priority, both because it could defend the home against large groups of roving looters / bands, and because it could be used to effectively defend a family as they travelled to safety across unfamiliar terrain and through unpredictable situations.

---------------------------

....There are drawbacks to every technology. Tens of thousands of people die every year in automobile accidents, and yet few if any are willing to sacrifice the freedom and convenience (and in some cases, life saving service) offered by automobiles.

Similary, firearms are sometimes used irresponsibly, criminally, or in tragic accidents.

Education and familiarity with firearms can help reduce or eliminate irresponsible behavior or tragic accidents.

Criminals will be armed whether law abiding citizens are or not - if you're willing to climb a clock tower and pick off college students, or put a gun to a man's head and demand his wallet, you're not worried in the least about violating gun laws.

Since firearms can be acquired just as easily as narcotics on the black market or made straightforwardly by hand in a machine shop, they will never be out of the hands of criminals. For similar reasons, neither will knives.

The only choice we have before us is how prepared we, the law abiding citizenry, will be when the time comes that we need to defend that which we do not wish to surrender from those who would kill us and take it by force.

Write your legislators, your congressmen, and your president, and contribute to the second amendment group of your choice. Your freedom depends on it.

At 2/18/09 06:28 PM, Deradius wrote:

The founding fathers' goals in drafting the second amendment were to provide the citizenry with a means to defend itself in the event that:

A. The government became a tyrrany (something they were familiar with) and needed to be overthrown, or

Irrelivant. The leaders who would do that are, as a group, very pro-gun.

B. The homeland was invaded and required a last line of defense (something else they were familiar with).

I really don't see Al Quata storming our beaches.

C. Any citizen needed to lawful defend him/herself for any reason against predators of the two or four legged kind.

There are other classes of weapons that can do either or both sufficiantly.

:Irrelivant. The leaders who would do that are, as a group, very pro-gun.:

Do you mean irrelevant? If so, what does the concept of pro-gun leaders have to do with resisting a tyrranical government? Please read the body of the post before responding.

:"...I don't really see Al Qaeda storming the beaches..." (paraphrased, because I deleted the original quote and don't feel like going back to get it):

You have a short memory. Al Qaeda is not the first foe we've faced, nor will it be the last. There are numerous possible circumstances that could result in the citizenry needing to repel an invasion. Nations are invaded frequently all over the world - to opine that it could not happen here is arrogance.

There are other classes of weapons that can do either or both sufficiantly.:

I addressed that issue in the original post. I encourage you to look there if you have questions.

I support this but I also support a ban on sawed off shotguns since they encourage people to shoot where they "think" someone who broke in might be and not actually aim their shot. need it be said a gun should at least be aimed before it is shot. they're needs to be a minimum blast radius for shotguns for home defense.

Let's ask this again.

Do guns make money or lose money?

Like how much money goes to controlling guns and controlling gun related crime.

And how much profit is made by the sales of gun and gun related merchandise.

I haven't a clue.

At 2/17/09 03:39 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: So, I've been contemplating the pros and cons of assault rifle bans and limiting weapons. The issue gets complicated, because clearly, no one thinks that a U.S. citizen should be able to build weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons (technically "arms"), so a has to be drawn somewhere. So here is one portion of the argument that I wanted to present:
People state that limiting the type of weapon or ammunition is a violation of the 2nd amendment ("the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"). However, it's been clear that constitutionally protected freedoms are limited and reach only to the extent where they do not infringe on the freedoms of other citizens. For example, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater or threaten another person. However, clearly, both of those examples are "speech," but few people would argue that those actions should be legal. In the same respect, the legal usefulness of an assault weapon (compared to other, non-assault type weapons) is minimal compared to threat it poses to those around the owner. The right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater is outweighed by the inconvenience and potential danger it poses to other. The potential danger of assault rifles outweighs the purpose.

Now, I'm not saying I fully support an assault rifle ban, and I know a large portion of NG users are gun nuts. But does that arguement work logically?

Assault rifles have no real use other than to commit a crime. Here are some arguments for assault rifles and my rebuttal.

1. Assault rifles should be legal for hunting. Assault rifles are much less efficient for hunting than any deer rifle. The range of a 30-06 bolt-action rifle is more than enough to take out a deer, as well as almost any other animal, and it is much greater than a weapon such as the AK 47, simply because assault rifles were made to be shot at medium range rather than long range.

2. Assault rifles should be legal for self-defense. Honestly, who is going to be carrying an M16 down the street with them in America? I can see why some people want to carry handguns for self-defense, but if you picture yourself needing an assault rifle to defend yourself, you have pissed way to many people off.

The fact is that unless you are going to rob a bank, an assault rifle has very little practical use. The only other use is so that SWAT can take out bank robbers.

At 2/19/09 05:34 PM, EKublai wrote: I support this but I also support a ban on sawed off shotguns since they encourage people to shoot where they "think" someone who broke in might be and not actually aim their shot. need it be said a gun should at least be aimed before it is shot. they're needs to be a minimum blast radius for shotguns for home defense.

There are indeed laws in place for how short you can make a shotgun barrel. That's why people have to saw them off themselves.

At 2/18/09 03:03 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

At 2/18/09 02:17 AM, Psycho-Medic wrote: Based on half of your responses to this thread I'm not sure that more than half of you understood what the assault weapons ban was actually for.

And based on your statement, you missed the fact that we're not discussing the assault rifle ban, just the politics behind restricting certain types of weaponry.

Reading Achilles2's post about the assault weapon ban got me thinking about "assault weapon" in terms of the assault weapon ban. My mistake. I just read a few posts about the minigun (GrammerNaziElite's post) which obviously goes above and beyond the term "assault weapon", and posts about pistols in general (RussianGiant's post). Other too, but since we're not talking about that there's really no point for me to talk about it anymore.

As for my input, I beleive the current weapon restrictions are fine.

Also, quoting the article that Achilles2's posted
"Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs
declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore,
Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage)"

Personally I would want to take a more diverse and larger sample if I was going to make a claim like that.

Plus,
"A compilation of 38 sources indicated that AWs accounted for 2% of crime guns on average".

Wow, a whole 2%. So even if you do believe that 6 cities is enough to get an accurate measure of how much AW crime dropped, you lowered the gun crime rate by a whopping .34% to 1.44%, which is not very impressive.

My thoughts for now.