Should assault rifles be banned in the US?

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by August

No, what will help more is banning violent video games and movies. Your right to free speech does more to create and motivate these monsters than any firearm.

[citation needed]

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by August

I'd love it if the Federal or state government fulfilled their obligation of training and equipping the militia but they choose not to.

National Guard?

State run for the most part.

I understand your point, but independant Paramilitary groups will never be sanctioned in modern America. We are a slight step behind China or Russia in oppressiveness, just look at what we lost in the Patriot act.

I still have faith in us though, I still have faith in the people.

[August]

Originally Posted by Dowly

[citation needed]

There's this thing called Google. A 2 second search produces this:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/1...ns-aggressive/

[soopaman2]

Video games are freaking evil.

I played the campaign in Call of Duty Black ops 2, and it forced me to stick a machete into the side of a mans face.

I then got on the USS Barack Obama, as a staging point to take out Raul Menendez.

I am a freedom fighter!

Rata-tat-tat, M60 IN YOUR FACES YOU SCUM!

Yes I do have problems.

[August]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

National Guard?

State run for the most part.

I understand your point, but independant Paramilitary groups will never be sanctioned in modern America. We are a slight step behind China or Russia in oppressiveness, just look at what we lost in the Patriot act.

I agree and I see the upcoming gun ban bills as just another piece to that puzzle. You know however it's worded it will not have an effect on the propensity for their use in crime or violent crime but it will definitely end up giving government more power.

.

I still have faith in us though, I still have faith in the people.

Me too. The anti gun forces and their supporters will continue with their attempts to ban guns just like they had been ramping up for all year but I still hope that more sensible heads will eventually prevail and if something does get passed it will be watered down.

The Democrats don't want to loose Congress and if they identify themselves too closely with their anti-gun element they are risking a lot in 2014.

[CCIP]

This "google" you speak of also points to a mass of contrary research, some even suggesting that video games, among other things, have been linked to reductions in violence in the real world.

Also....

[nikimcbee]

I then got on the USS Barack Obama

There's always this one:

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by Scurvy

I lurk here far more than I post but I jumped to the end of this thread and read this and had to reply. I might be beating a dead horse, but, anyway...

If you really live in California, this makes complete sense to me and the Liberal media has done a fine job telling you what to think. Don't take that as a personal jab at you, or anything...plenty of Americans have been brainwashed by the TV, radio and newspapers, including several of my dearest friends and family members.

Let's first address what a "military-grade assault weapon" is. That would be a firarm with a selector switch that is able to fire fully-automatic (press the trigger and the gun will fire continuously, until you take your finger off the trigger or until it runs out of ammunition, with the exception of the M-16A2 and some A4 variants, which fire a three-round burst).

Oh, yes, you can buy full-auto guns in America, as long as you pay the $200 tax and can afford a $5000 (minimum) gun that was made before 1986. Most guns cost more around the $10,000+ mark, since they're now considered collector's arms and antiques.

Of course, you're not talking about those real assault rifles because you're calling an AR-15 a "military-style" "assault weapon". That's the mainstream media presstitute's codeword for Scary-Black Gun-That's-Evil; an emotional catchword intended to send fear into the mindset of the typical low-information voter.

Time and time again, people who are for gun-control prove they don't know anything about guns. Another case that proves my point is that you think there's value in Americans owning handguns but not rifles (you later mention rifles and semi-automatics, but an AR-15 is exactly just that--a semi-automatic rifle). I don't understand your logic because the majority of violent crimes that occur in the US involves small-caliber handguns, not AR-15's or the real assault rifles, in inner-city Liberal Gun-Control Utopias. That does not mean I support banning handguns, by the way. I'm only pointing out that you are misguided in thinking that an "assault weapons" ban will stop criminals and gang members from giving political ammunition to our anti-gun politicians and their lapdog media. Fact is, Clinton's "Assault Weapons Ban" did nothing to stop gun violence and even after Bush allowed it to expire, violent crimes in America decreased, at the bewilderment of several anti-gun Congressmen, who claimed that more guns would turn the streets in America crimson, with the blood of innocents. Funny thing you won't learn from CNN or MSNBC, allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals actually drives down crime.

To think that our government could never become so corrupt as to devolve into Tyranny is a pathetic excuse to disarm American law-abiding citizens. The Second Amendment was primarily designed to create fear in our politicians, who would likely abandon the Constitution and create rules against the people's will. The precursor to all Tyrannical rule was to disarm the people.

Or, to scale it down to a more local arena, why do the police need AR-15's but I don't? Or, what kind of fire-extinguisher is too big and powerful for me to be allowed to own? I don't need a Ferrari, that can do more than double the speed-limit, but I should be banned from owning a certain semi-automatic rifle to defend my family's life with?

Have you ever heard of the Battle of Athens? If you haven't the time to read it, a corrupt Democrat Sheriff in McMinn County, TN was committing voter fraud for a decade. The people, including several veterans of WWII, responded after the Sheriff sent 200 sworn "Deputies" to suppress voters and eventually shot a black citizen for trying to vote. The People responded and several WWII veterans and townsfolk armed themselves and fought against the Tyrant. The deputies eventually surrendered and new laws against voter-fraud were enacted. That is the Second Amendment, in action.

We all got to see Obama, the guy who would bring "Change" to America, pretend to cry on National TV, over the senseless act in Sandy Hook. Nothing more than a knee-jerk emotional response to do something anti-American, immediately after a tragedy that occurred in a state where gun-control is one of the nation's highest priorities.

To President Obama (and his Liberal Defenders), you say you want a "serious" talk about the killing of innocent children? You defend the abortion doctors who murderously suck 150 million children out of the womb, who never have the chance to ever hide under their desks or in the closet, with their protective teachers. And you are being serious?

You want a serious talk about the same guns that you allowed the Mexican Drug Cartel and Syrian terrorist to have, but you don't trust the law-abiding American citizen to own?

I'm thinking now, more than ever, we law-abiders should stock up on guns. The pro-Islamic Arab Spring in Egypt, Libya and Syria is more important to our "Leader's" diplomacy, abroad, than his Domestic policy to protect Americans against Tyranny, here.

Twitter: MrKangaRoop
Veteran of Desert Storm, MOS: 91-A, Combat Medical Specialist in the US Army, NRA member, proud husband and father of one girl and owner of guns...one of them is an Bushmaster XM-15 that's never killed ANYONE.

No, im afraid you misunderstood what i was saying.

I said that no one needs an automatic ANYTHING. Not a glock 19, not an automatic assault rifle. Not anything. I was in favor of banning automatic assault rifles. Not, as you claim, a semi-automatic AR-15 that isn't capable of fully automatic fire. In another related thread i mentioned my uncle owning an AK-47 only capable of semi-automatic fire and the fact that my uncle only buys ten round clips. It's firing rifle rounds, semi-automatic, ten round clip, therefore it is not an assault rifle but rather a rifle.

And there are legitimate reasons for having a semi-automatic rifle. Diddo with handguns. I was never for banning those. But none for automatic weapons. Absolutely no reason.

In addition, if I am the one brainwashed by "liberal media" then i could just as EASILY accuse you the the EXACT same thing, given that you were not only in the military (thank you for your service) and you are a NRA member. I wasn't indoctrinated into a damned thing. I grew up and made my own decisions. I didn't go on what i saw on the news, i didn't go on what i had simpyl heard. I make my own logical decisions because i'm not like some of my peers, who DO get sucked into lies. Hell, most americans were grown up to believe that America is the greatest country on earth and that what few wrongs it's done it's made up for plenty in good. That of course is false. Whether you think a country is the greatest is opinion (not saying that my own country is bad, but i certainly don't put it on a pedestal and worship it) and the U.S has committed a great deal of injustices and massacres. The middle east has had a ridiculous amount of civilian casualties, and for what? Trying to install democracy in the middle east? That place is going to fall apart the second we leave and the trillions spent there and the thousands of dead will be wasted on absolutely nothing. Yet so many people still think it's necessary to further our time there. now THAT'S propaganda. I also see you didn't mention FOX NEWS, one of the most propagandistic filth-spewing channels on T.V. MSNBC has a few of their own ultra-liberals (i hate al sharpton and chris matthews), but Fox news is just mind-numbingly biased.

In addition, the battle of athens was 66 years ago. That sort of thing wouldn't stand to pass at ALL today. Not with the communication and information age we live in today. If there was that kind of brutality it would just as quickly come to an end. For instance, if Rodney King had been assaulted in 1946 you think people wouldve cared, or even heard about it? The reason it caused so much anger is because we had both recordings of it happening and a progressive attitude that finally accepted blacks as full, honored, equal citizens.

Having a 200 year old stonewall interpretation of an amendment written when both severe government instability and the fact we had no standing army were very real dangers, is ridiculous. There's no good reason to have automatic weapons. Absolutely zero. If you need an automatic weapon to hunt or defend yourself then you really shouldn't be owning a gun. Learn how to use semi-automatics to their full extent. Automatic weapons are both useless for responsible gun owners and perfect for those who wish to kill wide swaths of people.

Furthermore, i explained how i knew it wasn't going to stop, necessarily, massacres, but they sure as hell help.

And, August, free speech never killed anyone. Free speech never shot the millions of now dead or injured americans that have faced gun violence. I'd say the 2nd amendment is in need of WAY more reform than the 1st. And, to say this for the hundredth time, i was never in favor of taking guns away entirely. I was never for taking rifles or pistols. Automatic weapons are different. Automatic weapons have NO purpose but to kill large groups of people. And in both self defense and hunting, there is no use for them.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by August

There's this thing called Google. A 2 second search produces this:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/1...ns-aggressive/

But social healthcare is the supreme evil, right? Government funded mental healthcare is just some liberal communist agenda, RIGHT? Even though very few insurance policies, especially private insurance companies, cover full-blown mental healthcare?

But youre ready to rag on violent video games as a leading perpetrator? What? Violent video games have never killed anyone. Ever think that the psycho plays violent video games so much because he's psycho, instead of "playing video games so often turn an ordinary child into a psycho?"

Video games never killed anyone. Assault rifles have killed millions. Your analogy to banning assault rifles relates to banning violent games is simply a poor analogy. People use games and movies to entertain themselves. Normal human beings can very well distinguish pixelated gore and real death perfectly. Only psychos do not make this comparison. Assault weapons have only one purpose: to kill many people in VERY short amounts of time. Automatic weapons have no practical use in home defense nor hunting. It does allow psychos to get a hold of them, though. So why do we allow them? If you need to arm yourself, get a semi-automatic rifle or a pistol. You still have the tools necessary to fully use your 2nd amendment rights.

[Oberon]

Been playing FPS's since Doom when I was, what, fourteen, fifteen. Still haven't brutally murdered anyone.
That's probably my upbringing more than it is anything else though, honestly can't speak for the youth of today, since I'm the wrong side of that barrier now. But I think that considering violent movies have been around for some time now, as have movies that glorify war and violence, and video games are extrapolations of films in a manner that they are (some more than others) interactive film events.
Besides, such games are sold worldwide, and the youngest perpetuater of a massacre (defined by myself as more than five people shot in a go) was a 27 year old, and that was in 1987, long before the likes of Call of Duty. At first the media tried to blame Rambo, but there was no evidence to prove that Ryan even had a VCR, as Stallone put it:

"I carry the can for every lunatic in the world who goes crazy with a gun...but it wasn’t Rambo who sent Michael Ryan mad. In fact Rambo is the opposite of people like Ryan. He is always up against stronger opposition and never shoots first. Murderers are always saying, "God told me to kill" or "Jesus ordered me to kill" - so should the rest of us stop praying? There are always sick people out there who will hang their illness on to your hook."

[August]

Originally Posted by CCIP

This "google" you speak of also points to a mass of contrary research, some even suggesting that video games, among other things, have been linked to reductions in violence in the real world.

Well I remember there was a mass of contrary research to the idea that smoking caused cancer too. How much of your research is funded by media and game companies? It's obvious the media is promoting violence among our youth and like in the tobacco wars there is a growing body of evidence to prove it.

As for your implication that I want to "destroy the first amendment" nothing could be farther from the truth. I only use it as an example of how easy it is to rationalize our way out of essential liberties.

I like my violent movies and video games too, but I'm a 53 year old man who doesn't have the inclination or time to become totally absorbed by it like a kid will. I see nothing wrong with limiting under 18 access to them though. No way should the graphic violence like what is in Batman the Dark Knight for example be considered a PG-13 rated movie.

[CCIP]

Oh, I don't disagree entirely about having some sensible restrictions. I am playing devil's advocate to an extent. More than anything though, I believe that these restrictions need to be less about banning and more about educating parents rationally and in a manner that is not hysterical.

And I can answer your first question about research funding very reliably: practically none at all. By virtue of my work, I am connected to the Games Research Institute at University of Waterloo, the biggest research group of this type in Canada. While none of our projects look at video games violence at the moment, I can tell you that funding for social studies on games from game companies is basically non-existent. This is certainly the case all over North America at least. The entertainment industry is not interested in funding this type of research at all, and has never been. And yet there are some pretty reliable studies out there.

I, too, was playing Duke Nukem from age 12 and am probably the least violent person I know. And that is despite growing up in an incredibly violent environment around me. My parents, however, had made far more important choices than simply games in regard to my education, and in the end, it all worked out. That's where the responsibility really needs to be.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Video games are freaking evil.

I played the campaign in Call of Duty Black ops 2, and it forced me to stick a machete into the side of a mans face.

Well, not all video games are like that. In Halo 4, for example, you only kill xenophobic aliens and robots, sticking sharp things into them is optional and only lasts half a second, and when you are killing your fellow man in multiplayer, the story explanation is that it's a simulator.

But I tell you, CoD just disturbs me, so I'm never going to join the army.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

But I tell you, CoD just disturbs me, so I'm never going to join the army.

Well we can all give thanks for that

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Well we can all give thanks for that