Should assault rifles be banned in the US?

[mapuc]

I haven't that much knowledge about weapon and even if I had, I wouldn't be part of this thread, why?

Because this issue about assault weapon or stronger weapon laws or not is an American problem and should be solved by them self

Yes I do have my thoughts about the Americans love to weapons

Why do a person need an M16 or some other big assault weapon to defend their home.

From what I have learned a 9 mm can do enough to stop the criminal/s if you are trained to use it

That's my thought about this issue.

Markus

I don't argue for a simple reason.
I can't say anything that would change a belief someone has.
They can't say anything that changes my beliefs.

Most of what I see going on in this thread is akin to the Spanish Inquisition in my mind.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Why do a person need an M16 or some other big assault weapon to defend their home.

From what I have learned a 9 mm can do enough to stop the criminal/s if you are trained to use it

You are absolutely right. A pistol is a far better tool in any indoor situation, unless it's something big like a warehouse. No one "needs" an M-16 to defend their home. What you ar missing is that unless you are a registered firearms dealer you can't own an M-16 anyway, or any other fully automatic weapon. The noise everyone is making is actually over the AR-15, which is an M-16 that can only fire single shots, and other similar weapons.

Of course you don't need one of those either. But it isn't about what you think I "need". So we let you take away all the semi-automatic rifles. Then you point out that we don't really "need" any other kind of rifles. The you point out that we don't really "need" any kind of gun at all. This may or may not be true, but there will be gun makers, and there will be a black market, and there will be guns in the hands of pretty much everybody except the law-abiding citizens.

[mapuc]

^ Thank you for your answer.

I hope that your President comes with a solution that both side can support.


Markus

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mapuc

^ Thank you for your answer.

Don't misunderstand me. I may be forceful in that argument, but I am well aware that it is just my opinion, and I can be as wrong as anybody else.

I hope that your President comes with a solution that both side can support.

So do I.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You are absolutely right. A pistol is a far better tool in any indoor situation, unless it's something big like a warehouse. No one "needs" an M-16 to defend their home. What you ar missing is that unless you are a registered firearms dealer you can't own an M-16 anyway, or any other fully automatic weapon. The noise everyone is making is actually over the AR-15, which is an M-16 that can only fire single shots, and other similar weapons.

Of course you don't need one of those either. But it isn't about what you think I "need". So we let you take away all the semi-automatic rifles. Then you point out that we don't really "need" any other kind of rifles. The you point out that we don't really "need" any kind of gun at all. This may or may not be true, but there will be gun makers, and there will be a black market, and there will be guns in the hands of pretty much everybody except the law-abiding citizens.

I don't know, if a criminal breaks in my house, a pistol is the last thing I'm pulling out and I own a few. The few times I've heard strange noises, I get out my 12 ga, that way if I'm a lil bit nervous I won't miss. Still, I'd rather pull my rifle out than try aiming with a pistol when I'm nervous. I know I'd feel a lot better with an AR with a 30 round clip than a mere 9mm pistol if someone was coming in my house.

[Sailor Steve]

As I told a housemate when he asked if I would shoot a burglar with my Springfield, "No. The bullet would go through the burglar, through the wall, through you, out the other wall and possibly through the neighbor across the street."

I know that even at very close range most shots miss anyway, but I think that a bunch of shots from a 9mm, or seven shots from a .45, will do the job inside my apartment.

Actually I think my bolo will do the job inside my apartment. Another good weapon is a stack of dinner plates. A dinner plate thrown like a frisbee at close range will break bones, and a lucky hit can kill.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

As I told a housemate when he asked if I would shoot a burglar with my Springfield, "No. The bullet would go through the burglar, through the wall, through you, out the other wall and possibly through the neighbor across the street."

I know that even at very close range most shots miss anyway, but I think that a bunch of shots from a 9mm, or seven shots from a .45, will do the job inside my apartment.

Actually I think my bolo will do the job inside my apartment. Another good weapon is a stack of dinner plates. A dinner plate thrown like a frisbee at close range will break bones, and a lucky hit can kill.

Bolo, dinner plates? You must have a huge apartment to have the space to swing a bolo or wing a dinner plate. I'd think it'd be tough to keep them from closing the distance on you.

Now the best anti-home invader weapon in my opinion is a .12ga pump shotgun like my Mossberg 590. In the dark nothing says "git" to a burglar like the sound of a round being racked into a shot gun.

Mine has a bayonet lug and mounts a standard M7/M9 Army bayonet (Yes Obama they still issue bayonets). I figure it'd serve pretty good to keep someone at bay without having to splatter them.

[Armistead]

Yea, shotgun is the way to go, but still, if I had to choose between a pistol and rifle, I'd prefer the rifle. Course in apt I wouldn't, but I live out in the hicks. I do carry my rifle should I venture outside at night, but usually it's wild animals and I'll shoot any coyote on site.

Now the best anti-home invader weapon in my opinion is a .12ga pump shotgun like my Mossberg 590. In the dark nothing says "git" to a burglar like the sound of a round being racked into a shot gun.

In the dark nothing says "get ready to shoot him" to a burglar like the sound of a round being racked into a shot gun.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You are absolutely right. A pistol is a far better tool in any indoor situation, unless it's something big like a warehouse. No one "needs" an M-16 to defend their home. What you ar missing is that unless you are a registered firearms dealer you can't own an M-16 anyway, or any other fully automatic weapon. The noise everyone is making is actually over the AR-15, which is an M-16 that can only fire single shots, and other similar weapons.

Of course you don't need one of those either. But it isn't about what you think I "need". So we let you take away all the semi-automatic rifles. Then you point out that we don't really "need" any other kind of rifles. The you point out that we don't really "need" any kind of gun at all. This may or may not be true, but there will be gun makers, and there will be a black market, and there will be guns in the hands of pretty much everybody except the law-abiding citizens.

I don't think anyone is suggesting going that far are they? The Second Amendment still holds until the people vote to change the constitution right?

Unless of course that amendment is restricted by the interpretation that the right to bear arms was only to allow for an armed militia in case of national emergency.

I noticed this earlier post got overlooked and still have the question open in my mind: http://subsim.com/radioroom/showpost...&postcount=208

How does the unorganised militia become mobilised and therefore organised? Is it as per WWII and so on or is there another model?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by August

Mine has a bayonet lug and mounts a standard M7/M9 Army bayonet (Yes Obama they still issue bayonets). I figure it'd serve pretty good to keep someone at bay without having to splatter them.

I can imagine any young aspiring burglars on this forum are hastily crossing your address from their list of places to visit

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Bolo, dinner plates? You must have a huge apartment to have the space to swing a bolo or wing a dinner plate. I'd think it'd be tough to keep them from closing the distance on you.

Dinner plates are a fallback, only handy if you're in the kitchen at the time and any other weapon is across the room.

I'm not sure what you thought I meant by "Bolo". As I said in another thread some while ago, I didn't mean "Bola"



But one of these.



I figure if you're going to have a knife handy, it might as well be a big one.

Though I suppose this Bolo would be pretty good to have around when you're out and about.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by TarJak

I don't think anyone is suggesting going that far are they? The Second Amendment still holds until the people vote to change the constitution right?

The problem is that once you start modifying a law, even one that ingrained, it starts to become easier to modify it again, and again, until you modify it right out of existence, and nobody notices. Many will tell you that's unlikely, but you have to wonder sometimes.

Unless of course that amendment is restricted by the interpretation that the right to bear arms was only to allow for an armed militia in case of national emergency.

That's what the anti-gun people claim. This is why the pro-gun people point the the second clause and say that it doesn't say "The Militia's right to keep and bear arms etc."

I noticed this earlier post got overlooked and still have the question open in my mind:

How does the unorganised militia become mobilised and therefore organised? Is it as per WWII and so on or is there another model?

I'm not sure. I think that to work properly these days citizens would have to volunteer, and show up at a specified place and time with their own rifles to drill under State, not Federal, supervision, and agree to show up if called. That's just my idea of how it might work, and as I said I'm not sure.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You are absolutely right. A pistol is a far better tool in any indoor situation, unless it's something big like a warehouse. No one "needs" an M-16 to defend their home. What you ar missing is that unless you are a registered firearms dealer you can't own an M-16 anyway, or any other fully automatic weapon. The noise everyone is making is actually over the AR-15, which is an M-16 that can only fire single shots, and other similar weapons.

Of course you don't need one of those either. But it isn't about what you think I "need". So we let you take away all the semi-automatic rifles. Then you point out that we don't really "need" any other kind of rifles. The you point out that we don't really "need" any kind of gun at all. This may or may not be true, but there will be gun makers, and there will be a black market, and there will be guns in the hands of pretty much everybody except the law-abiding citizens.

I have an AR-15. Thank you.

It is way more high maintainance than the military counterpart.

Do I need it? Not really. Do I enjoy it? Do I respect it? Do I respect human life?

All yes.

I hate to spit out a cliche, of guns not killing people, but people do.

I fear gun control, because it is what Hitler and Stalin did before they plunged their nations into peril.

As said before, I am liberal on in most views except gun control.

the bill of rights is the groundwork of our constitution, and should never be changed.

Change the second amendment, it will bring about precidence to change another. Like the right to speedy trial, or the right to fair punishments.

Change the second amendment would open up a huge can of worms, that will erode our entire system.

Bill of rights is not to be messed with, it is the benchmark, our core beliefs as a people, and a "national idea".