What is your opinion on "assault weapons"?

[USMC276]

Basically, "assault weapons" are referred to as "military looking" semi automatic rifles. They function virtually exactly the same as a "regular" semi automatic rifle, so can someone explain why "assault weapons" should be banned or why they shouldn't be banned.

[mattsmith48]

Basically, "assault weapons" are referred to as "military looking" semi automatic rifles. They function virtually exactly the same as a "regular" semi automatic rifle, so can someone explain why "assault weapons" should be banned or why they shouldn't be banned.

They are made for military use, and like ''regular semi automatic rifles'' the only reason you need one is if your at war. there is no reason for a civilian to own one!

[USMC276]

They are made for military use, and like ''regular semi automatic rifles'' the only reason you need one is if your at war. there is no reason for a civilian to own one!

I can give 2 reasons;

1. self defense
2. Sport shooting (one trigger pull per fire seems pretty fair and reasonable to me)


Why put a blanket ban on a particular firearm when millions of people use it legally in the first place?

your from Canada, where you can legally own semi automatic firearms;
you have no gun problems. You probably want to fix something in Canada that isn't even broken

[Judean Zealot]

Basically, "assault weapons" are referred to as "military looking" semi automatic rifles. They function virtually exactly the same as a "regular" semi automatic rifle, so can someone explain why "assault weapons" should be banned or why they shouldn't be banned.

Is it just 'military looking' or higher powered/larger cakiber as well?

[USMC276]

Is it just 'military looking' or higher powered/larger cakiber as well?

I'm talking about your standard civilian, semi automatic AR 15 or Ak, or any other military based rifle made in semi automatic for civilian use

[Judean Zealot]

I'm talking about your standard civilian, semi automatic AR 15 or Ak, or any other military based rifle made in semi automatic for civilian use

Is that the government criterion for "military grade"?

Like, if I had a weapon that looked like an AR 15 but only fired a smaller caliber, would it still be an 'assault weapon'?

Or, conversely, if I had a weapon that looked like a shotgun, but in reality was an equal grade rifle to an AR 15, would that be an assault weapon?

[mattsmith48]

I can give 2 reasons;

1. self defense
2. Sport shooting (one trigger pull per fire seems pretty fair and reasonable to me)


Why put a blanket ban on a particular firearm when millions of people use it legally in the first place?

your from Canada, where you can legally own semi automatic firearms;
you have no gun problems. You probably want to fix something in Canada that isn't even broken

1. Self defense? really? in what situation would someone need a semi automatic weapon to protect himself.

2. Ok fine its alright to have one for hunting

[Judean Zealot]

1. Self defense? really? in what situation would someone need a semi automatic weapon to protect himself.


If 3 burglars break into your home.

[USMC276]

1. Self defense? really? in what situation would someone need a semi automatic weapon to protect himself.

2. Ok fine its alright to have one for hunting

Judaea just gave you the answer.

Most home invasions involve more than 1 attacker. A woman once shot an intruder SIX times with a semi auto handgun and LIVED.

Enough reason right there why someone would want a semi automatic rifle for home defense

Is that the government criterion for "military grade"?

Like, if I had a weapon that looked like an AR 15 but only fired a smaller caliber, would it still be an 'assault weapon'?

Or, conversely, if I had a weapon that looked like a shotgun, but in reality was an equal grade rifle to an AR 15, would that be an assault weapon?

yup, a gun is labeled an "assault weapon" if it simply has either a pistol grip, bayonet lug, some sort of muzzle device, or adjustable buttstock. those practical features for civilians are labeled as "military features" I can go on into explaining why they actually made those called "military features" if your curious

Pretty retarded when you think about how THAT'S where some people think the line should be drawn. Over a fucking pistol grip

Merged Double Post. Please use the "Edit" and "Multi Quote" buttons next time
~Plane And Simple

[Judean Zealot]

yup, a gun is labeled an "assault weapon" if it simply has either a pistol grip, bayonet lug, some sort of muzzle device, or adjustable buttstock. those practical features for civilians are labeled as "military features" I can go on into explaining why they actually made those called "military features" if your curious

Pretty retarded when you think about how THAT'S where some people think the line should be drawn. Over a fucking pistol grip

I don't know much about Federal gun control laws in the US, but if what you're saying is true, that's retarded.

Although I can see the rationale of prohibiting open carry for such weapons, since the public may think it's automatic.

[USMC276]

I don't know much about Federal gun control laws in the US, but if what you're saying is true, that's retarded.

Although I can see the rationale of prohibiting open carry for such weapons, since the public may think it's automatic.

Well, people shouldn't be worried over the appearance of a gun.

there are VERY few legal full auto weapons in peoples hands in America.

It wouldn't really make sense to say it's legal to open carry a rifle, but not rifles that are based off fully automatic ones. If you think about that, it isn't really practical.

I'm not a big fan of open carry of rifles in general, but if some counties want to allow it, i don't really care

[mattsmith48]

If 3 burglars break into your home.

Most of the time burglars will wait for everyone to be out of the house before going in.

Judaea just gave you the answer.

Most home invasions involve more than 1 attacker. A woman once shot an intruder SIX times with a semi auto handgun and LIVED.

Enough reason right there why someone would want a semi automatic rifle for home defense

If you shoot someone 6 times its not self defense anymore its attempted murder. What else that woman could have done?... I don't know maybe get out of the house and call the cops. You Americans need to realize someone getting in your house doesn't always have to end with someone shooting someone else.

[Judean Zealot]

Most of the time burglars will wait for everyone to be out of the house before going in.


Most houses aren't burglarized. What's your point? The protection is for the possibility of it happening.

And by the way, my house was burglarized while my brother was home. It happens.

If you shoot someone 6 times its not self defense anymore its attempted murder. What else that woman could have done?... I don't know maybe get out of the house and call the cops. You Americans need to realize someone getting in your house doesn't always have to end with someone shooting someone else.

Attempted murder of someone who poses a likely threat to your life= self defense.

[mattsmith48]

I don't know much about Federal gun control laws in the US, but if what you're saying is true, that's retarded.

Although I can see the rationale of prohibiting open carry for such weapons, since the public may think it's automatic.

you want to know the guns controls laws in the US? There is none. It's basically You want a gun? you get one! Doesn't matter if you went to jail, if you have mental issues, or how crazy or hatefull you are. as long your not Muslim you can get a gun. You could literally say I want a Gun to go shoot people in a church, or to shoot on live TV, or in a School and they would give you a gun.

Most houses aren't burglarized. What's your point? The protection is for the possibility of it happening.

And by the way, my house was burglarized while my brother was home. It happens.

and what did he do?

[dxcxdzv]

Burglarized? Where the fuck do you guys living?

[Judean Zealot]

you want to know the guns controls laws in the US? There is none. It's basically You want a gun? you get one! Doesn't matter if you went to jail, if you have mental issues, or how crazy or hatefull you are. as long your not Muslim you can get a gun. You could literally say I want a Gun to go shoot people in a church, or to shoot on live TV, or in a School and they would give you a gun.

Last I knew it made national news when a store put up a sign prohibiting Muslims from buying guns from his store.

When something makes national news it's generally rather unusual.
and what did he do?
Hid under a bed. He had no phone in reach.
Burglarized? Where the fuck do you guys living?
Not all of us have the money to live in a nice neighborhood. And even nice suburbs are occasionally burglarized.

[mattsmith48]

Last I knew it made national news when a store put up a sign prohibiting Muslims from buying guns from his store.

When something makes national news it's generally rather unusual.

Since it made news more have done it. There was even one time there was people with guns stopping a Muslim from getting in a gun store

Hid under a bed. He had no phone in reach.

And he end up alright?

[USMC276]

Most of the time burglars will wait for everyone to be out of the house before going in.



If you shoot someone 6 times its not self defense anymore its attempted murder. What else that woman could have done?... I don't know maybe get out of the house and call the cops. You Americans need to realize someone getting in your house doesn't always have to end with someone shooting someone else.

the odds of having a fire in your house are very slim, just like the odds of someone breaking into your house when your home are slim.

So is it silly to have a fire extinguisher in your house.

"If you shoot someone 6 times its not self defense anymore its attempted murder. What else that woman could have done?"

so this is the message you want to send to burglars? They're invincible from justice from citizens? that guy ran out of the house. What if he had a knife or also had a gun? someone's in your house, you SHOOT to kill. YOUR life is more precious than a burglars life. Stand Your Ground laws guarantee you the right to shoot and kill an intruder in your home.

Burglarized? Where the fuck do you guys living?

the united States, where a total of 2-3 million burglaries happen per year

[dxcxdzv]

Not all of us have the money to live in a nice neighborhood. And even nice suburbs are occasionally burglarized.
Well, I guess a motherfucking Spartan 117 gun is the solution.

[USMC276]

you want to know the guns controls laws in the US? There is none. It's basically You want a gun? you get one! Doesn't matter if you went to jail, if you have mental issues, or how crazy or hatefull you are. as long your not Muslim you can get a gun. You could literally say I want a Gun to go shoot people in a church, or to shoot on live TV, or in a School and they would give you a gun.

for the most part, your VERY incorrect. Gun control laws are made to prevent felons with criminal or mental illness histories from obtaining guns.

The problem is that some places don't enforce these laws well enough.

You're very misleading my friend. Brush up on your laws

Well, I guess a motherfucking Spartan 117 gun is the solution.

I get the reference, but i don't see how that applies at all

[Judean Zealot]

And he end up alright?

Yes. But imagine he was a man with a family. Hiding himself under a bed wouldn't quite protect his family, would it?

[dxcxdzv]

I get the reference, but i don't see how that applies at all
Don't tell me that some legal weapons in the USA don't look like super powered shit able to destroy a wall.

[USMC276]

Yes. But imagine he was a man with a family. Hiding himself under a bed wouldn't quite protect his family, would it?

and that's where having a semi automatic weapon helps

Don't tell me that some legal weapons in the USA don't look like super powered shit.

you said the key word. "LOOK like"

Can't ban guns over looks

[dxcxdzv]

you said the key word. "LOOK like"

Can't ban guns over looks
Of course "look like". Mushrooms don't need to look scary to rape your stomach.

[USMC276]

Of course "look like". Mushrooms don't need to look scary to rape your stomach.

lol, i love your references

But i'm glad we agree

[mattsmith48]

the odds of having a fire in your house are very slim, just like the odds of someone breaking into your house when your home are slim.

So is it silly to have a fire extinguisher in your house.

No cuz a fire is actually dangerous. When someone break into a house its to steal stuff.

"If you shoot someone 6 times its not self defense anymore its attempted murder. What else that woman could have done?"

so this is the message you want to send to burglars? They're invincible from justice from citizens? that guy ran out of the house. What if he had a knife or also had a gun?

If there is strict gun control laws the odds the guy who break into your house are really low. And a knife, You have knifes in your house too and you can run away from someone with a knife.

someone's in your house, you SHOOT to kill. YOUR life is more precious than a burglars life. Stand Your Ground laws guarantee you the right to shoot and kill an intruder in your home.

There is no life more precious than another. Stand Your Ground laws is another stupid law from your country because again of the lack of gun control laws. And what stop someone from inviting someone to his home and kill him?

[USMC276]

No cuz a fire is actually dangerous. When someone break into a house its to steal stuff.



If there is strict gun control laws the odds the guy who break into your house are really low. And a knife, You have knifes in your house too and you can run away from someone with a knife.



There is no life more precious than another. Stand Your Ground laws is another stupid law from your country because again of the lack of gun control laws. And what stop someone from inviting someone to his home and kill him?

"just to steal stuff"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/29/minnesota-homeowner-kills-teens/8480047/

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2015/07/17/columbus-scales-drive-shooting.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/burglar-stabbed-millionaire-couple-death-5319489

http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Homeowner-Testifies-as-witness-220670091.html

"if there is strict gun control laws the odds the guy who break into your house are really low."

hat statistic are you basing that off? Britain has VERY strict gun control laws and LOTS of crimes like burglary


"There is no life more precious than another."

a deranged burglar, or someone coming to steal and harm you, or steal stuff YOU paid for is not more precious than a family trying to survive and live another day

my links are evidence it's better to be judged by 12 fools like yourself, than to be carried by six into my grave

[mattsmith48]

Yes. But imagine he was a man with a family. Hiding himself under a bed wouldn't quite protect his family, would it?

The only thing im saying is there is better alternative then just shoot the guy.

[Judean Zealot]

The only thing im saying is there is better alternative then just shoot the guy.

What? The guy is likely armed. He may kill you. He may rape your wife and daughters. What better option is there for dealing with the guy in the 30 seconds before he gets into your kids' bedroom?

[USMC276]

The only thing im saying is there is better alternative then just shoot the guy.

what better alternative is there to deal with someone wielding a knife with the very likely intent of stabbing you to death?

your pacifist ideology leads to victimization

[mattsmith48]

"just to steal stuff"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/29/minnesota-homeowner-kills-teens/8480047/

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2015/07/17/columbus-scales-drive-shooting.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/burglar-stabbed-millionaire-couple-death-5319489

http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Homeowner-Testifies-as-witness-220670091.html



"There is no life more precious than another."

a deranged burglar, or someone coming to steal and harm you, or steal stuff YOU paid for is not more precious than a family trying to survive and live another day

my links are evidence it's better to be judged by 12 fools like yourself, than to be carried by six into my grave

The fact he made a bad choice to break into your house to steal your stuff doesn't mean you have the right to kill him.

"if there is strict gun control laws the odds the guy who break into your house are really low."

hat statistic are you basing that off? Britain has VERY strict gun control laws and LOTS of crimes like burglary
I didnt say it stops burglaries I said they dont have Guns with them when they break into a house.

What? The guy is likely armed. He may kill you. He may rape your wife and daughters. What better option is there for dealing with the guy in the 30 seconds before he gets into your kids' bedroom?

What if you kill him and he have a family and the only thing he wants is to steal your stuff to feed them? is that better?

[USMC276]

The fact he made a bad choice to break into your house to steal your stuff doesn't mean you have the right to kill him


I didnt say it stops burglaries I said they dont have Guns with them when they break into a house.

what message are you sending to burglars matt???

that a civilians gun is useless because they are not allowed to use it??

YOU DON'T KNOW the intent of a burglar. You THINK he may just be there to steal. He's a low life for breaking into YOUR property so theres a good chance he's even more of a low life and would harm you family. No reason to take chances when you and your family's life is on the line.


and you don't NEED a gun to break into a house. people have broken into houses with knives and have stabbed and gutted victims in their houses!

What if you kill him and he have a family and the only thing he wants is to steal your stuff to feed them? is that better?

i have yet to hear a story of someone breaking into a house and stealing food from a cabinet or refrigerator. and with all the fucking food stamps people can get, why break into someone's house and steal food?

my grandparents got robbed and not a single food item was stolen. they stole jewelry

I mean seriously???

[mattsmith48]

what better alternative is there to deal with someone wielding a knife with the very likely intent of stabbing you to death?

Like I said earlier You can run away from a knife from a gun its a little harder

your pacifist ideology leads to victimization

Cuz shooting someone is so much better

[Judean Zealot]

What if you kill him and he have a family and the only thing he wants is to steal your stuff to feed them? is that better?

Absolutely. I have an obligation to my family, not his. The fault of his family's straits after you shoot him is his and his alone.

I will agree with you that money doesn't justify killing somebody. What justifies the killing is the potential risk to the lives of you and your family.

[mattsmith48]

i have yet to hear a story of someone breaking into a house and stealing food from a cabinet or refrigerator. and with all the fucking food stamps people can get, why break into someone's house and steal food?

I mean seriously???

I didnt say steal food hes gonna steal your stuff to sell it later to buy food for his family and food stamps dont pay for much

Absolutely. I have an obligation to my family, not his. The fault of his family's straits after you shoot him is his and his alone.

I will agree with you that money doesn't justify killing somebody. What justifies the killing is the potential risk to the lives of you and your family.

I agree if the guy actually threats to kill you then its ok but just breaking into a house to steal shit is not a good reason to kill someone


-Merged double post. Please use the "Edit" and "Multi-quote" buttons. -Emerald Dream

[USMC276]

I didnt say steal food hes gonna steal your stuff to sell it later to buy food for his family and food stamps dont pay for much

why steal stuff for food when there is something called food stamps matt?

and why do you assume that's most likely the reason their doing it and not because they're scumbags?



"HEY DON'T SHOOT HIM. Theres a VERY small chance he's stealing stuff to pay for food, so your gonna need to risk your family's life and let him steal what he wants."

Wow, very sound logic LMAO

I agree if the guy actually threats to kill you then its ok but just breaking into a house to steal shit is not a good reason to kill someone

matt these things can be split second decisions. You choose not to shoot the person, he runs into another room and you lose track of him and then BAM, comes out of nowhere and stabs you or whatever.

NO reason to take a chance and someone breaking in your house to steal YOUR PROPERTY gives you a right to protect your property by shooting.

Want to know a good way for a burglar not to get shot?

don't burglarize in the first place!

[Judean Zealot]

I agree if the guy actually threats to kill you then its ok but just breaking into a house to steal shit is not a good reason to kill someone

Are you going to ask him? "Hello sir, I was just wondering if you had a weapon or wish to harm me or my family".

That'd be natural selection hard at work, son.

[USMC276]

Are you going to ask him? "Hello sir, I was just wondering if you had a weapon or wish to harm me or my family".

That'd be natural selection hard at work, son.

lmao, i'll feel bad for his wife and family when someone breaks into his house, that they won't have a man willing to put his family's life first, over a low life criminal

[Judean Zealot]

USMC276

What disturbs me about your position is you seem to be justifying killing a man to protect your property.

Do you really maintain that or am I misunderstanding?

[USMC276]

USMC276

What disturbs me about your position is you seem to be justifying killing a man to protect your property.

Do you really maintain that or am I misunderstanding?

you have a right to wound someone taking your stuff. why should someone be able to break into your house and steal your valuables?

regardless, if they're in your house, the safest bet is to shoot because god forbid they have a weapon that they will use.

The Castle Doctrine is made to protect homeowners from burglars. if they're in your house, you don't have to assume their intent.

it's not about revenge, it's about safety of you and your family

USMC276

What disturbs me about your position is you seem to be justifying killing a man to protect your property.

Do you really maintain that or am I misunderstanding?

i'm not saying someone steals your stuff, so you can kill them. but if it takes trying to wound them to stop, nothing wrong with that.

besides, don't you want them to be apprehended by law enforcement?


-Merged double post. Please use the "Edit" or "Multi-quote" buttons. -Emerald Dream

[Judean Zealot]

you have a right to wound someone taking your stuff. why should someone be able to break into your house and steal your valuables?

regardless, if they're in your house, the safest bet is to shoot because god forbid they have a weapon that they will use.

The Castle Doctrine is made to protect homeowners from burglars. if they're in your house, you don't have to assume their intent.

it's not about revenge, it's about safety of you and your family

Wound is the operative word. Although I agree that it's impossible to know his intent and as such shooting to kill is the best bet.

I'm glad we agree.

[Stronk Serb]

Home defence and gun regulations are important, due to bad laws, a guy got convicted for depriving of freedom because he locked a burglar in his cellar, a guy stabbed a convicted felon in self defence because he broke into his house and assaulted his wife. The burglar bled out while running away and the guy is charged for murder. One thing I like about the USA is that if someone breaks into your home with intent of robbing you and/or killing you, you bave every right to pump that motherfucker full of lead. Low enforcement in some area is bad, but it's not because of the law, it's because of a bad administration so a quick purge of corrupt elements is ought to fix the problem.

[mattsmith48]

why steal stuff for food when there is something called food stamps matt?

and why do you assume that's most likely the reason their doing it and not because they're scumbags?



"HEY DON'T SHOOT HIM. Theres a VERY small chance he's stealing stuff to pay for food, so your gonna need to risk your family's life and let him steal what he wants."

Wow, very sound logic LMAO

It was one example from many of the reason to steal And again food stamps dont pay for much

Are you going to ask him? "Hello sir, I was just wondering if you had a weapon or wish to harm me or my family".

That'd be natural selection hard at work, son.

If you see someone break in your house dont go talk to him get the fuck out and call the cops

you have a right to wound someone taking your stuff. why should someone be able to break into your house and steal your valuables?

regardless, if they're in your house, the safest bet is to shoot because god forbid they have a weapon that they will use.

Stuff can be replaced a life no. There is laws against breaking in a house and stealling stuff. Like I said get the fuck out of the house and call the cops worse case scenario he get away with it and you get brand new stuff


Please do not double post. Use the "Edit" and "Multi-quote" buttons. -Emerald Dream

[USMC276]

It was one example from many of the reason to steal And again food stamps dont pay for much

Yeah, it don't pay for much when your a dead beat who spends it on beer and other useless shit.

Your enabling people to burglarize houses. I don't give a fuck if the person may or may not be stealing shit for food. If the person is in my house, I'm shooting on sight because I don't a burglar in my house with the possible intent of hurting me.

You don't want to get shot?

don't break into someone's house. Very simple concept. And you have yet to provide a statistic proving most burglars burglarize houses to pay for food. One of the articles i presented involved teenagers. You think teenagers are burglarizing houses for food???


If you see someone break in your house dont go talk to him get the fuck out and call the cops

Average response time for police: 5 minutes.

Explain how you get the fuck out of the house when there are burglars in it? Anti gunners tell us to hide, now your telling me to magically being invisible and sneak passed burglars?


Stuff can be replaced a life no. There is laws against breaking in a house and stealling stuff. Like I said get the fuck out of the house and call the cops worse case scenario he get away with it and you get brand new stuff

I see little value in the life of a repeat burglar. I said shoot to wound and if the person dies, i don't care at all. Burglars are repeat offenders. Wounding and sending one to jail, or killing one prevents them from burglarizing again. Not everything is replaceable and theres no reason for a low life to have to put you in a situation deciding whether to stop him from stealing YOUR STUFF or not

Please do not double post. Use the "Edit" and "Multi-quote" buttons. -Emerald Dream

Time you get a new home defense mentality

[mattsmith48]

Time you get a new home defense mentality

You want home defence buy an alarm system

[DriveAlive]

You want home defence buy an alarm system

Powers out
Guy disables alarm
You forget to set alarm

These are just some possibilities that an alarm won't protect against. Another thing is that I do have an alarm system, but even if it goes off, they still have to call the house and then you have to tell them to call the police. Whole lot of good that does. My logic when it comes to guns for self defense is that 99% of the time you can avoid confrontation and not need a gun, but that 1% of the time only a gun will do and you need that gun immediately. If someone breaks into my house, Im not going to immediately shoot them. I will give them verbal warnings, make sure the police are being called, and only fire if they fail to stop or flee. With that said, if a burglar decides to come at me, I will fire immediately. I would also like to ask how "leaving you house" works at 2am when you're in bed and the guy breaks in and is coming up the stairs. should I try to run past him or jump out of my window? A better option would be to let him know I am armed, the police are on their way, and I will use deadly force if necessary.

[Sir Suomi]

Here's the funny thing. The average Joe in America, can not own an assault rifle. It really does frustrate me when someone states that a firearm like an AR-15 is an assault rifle, when in all reality it's only a semi-automatic rifle. To be a considered an assault rifle, a firearm must exhibit the following characteristics:


It must be an individual weapon (This shouldn't need an explanation)
It must be capable of selective fire (Meaning you can select your mode of firing via some switch, lever, button, etc, from either semi-automatic, burst fire, or fully automatic)
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge (more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, i;e 5.56x45, 7.62x39, etc)
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine (Doesn't need an explanation)
And it should have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards)


While a rifle like an AR-15 shares almost all of these characteristics, the main difference is the fact that you don't have the capability of selective fire. So, to clear things out, an average Joe can not own an assault rifle without going through the proper channels prior.


Anyways

I won't argue that America does have a problem with violence, and most attention is drawn upon incidents involving firearms. However, statistics have shown that while firearm purchases are increasing, violent crime is decreasing here in America.

Here's an excellent article published by Forbes talking about this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

So what's to blame for all the violence here in America? In my opinion, it's simply American culture to be violent. Between the media almost glorifying the committers of terrible shooting tragedies, the movies/TV shows/Video Games/Books/Music we entertain ourselves with, and most importantly our war on Drugs, violence is simply an unavoidable occurrence we have to deal with.

[phuckphace]

didn't read the thread but I want one

[USMC276]

You want home defence buy an alarm system

lol, I also have an alarm system.

Alarm systems don't guarantee your safety. Like I said, average police response time is 5 minutes.

Here's the funny thing. The average Joe in America, can not own an assault rifle. It really does frustrate me when someone states that a firearm like an AR-15 is an assault rifle, when in all reality it's only a semi-automatic rifle. To be a considered an assault rifle, a firearm must exhibit the following characteristics:


It must be an individual weapon (This shouldn't need an explanation)
It must be capable of selective fire (Meaning you can select your mode of firing via some switch, lever, button, etc, from either semi-automatic, burst fire, or fully automatic)
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge (more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, i;e 5.56x45, 7.62x39, etc)
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine (Doesn't need an explanation)
And it should have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards)


While a rifle like an AR-15 shares almost all of these characteristics, the main difference is the fact that you don't have the capability of selective fire. So, to clear things out, an average Joe can not own an assault rifle without going through the proper channels prior.


Anyways

I won't argue that America does have a problem with violence, and most attention is drawn upon incidents involving firearms. However, statistics have shown that while firearm purchases are increasing, violent crime is decreasing here in America.

Here's an excellent article published by Forbes talking about this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

So what's to blame for all the violence here in America? In my opinion, it's simply American culture to be violent. Between the media almost glorifying the committers of terrible shooting tragedies, the movies/TV shows/Video Games/Books/Music we entertain ourselves with, and most importantly our war on Drugs, violence is simply an unavoidable occurrence we have to deal with.

I'm not going by the definition of an "assault rifle." I'm going by the absurd definition of an "assault weapon" (which is a new term)

neither assault rifles nor so called "assault weapons" should be restricted from citizens. There needs to be better enforced background checks, not weapon restrictions for law abiding citizens

Please do not double post. -Emerald Dream

[phuckphace]

violent crime rates are decreasing in the US due to mass incarceration of many of our problematic elements.

it certainly doesn't indicate that our society is less criminally inclined than it once was - it's the opposite. all we did was build and pack out more prisons.

[mattsmith48]

lol, I also have an alarm system.

Alarm systems don't guarantee your safety. Like I said, average police response time is 5 minutes.

Well since your the one living in a dangerous violent terrorist country full of crazy religious people where its so easy for crazy people to get a gun it might not be enough, but in the developed countries it is enough.

[USMC276]

Well since your the one living in a dangerous violent terrorist country full of crazy religious people where its so easy for crazy people to get a gun it might not be enough, but in the developed countries it is enough.

People have broke into houses and gutted victims with knives. You don't need a gun to break into a house

[mattsmith48]

People have broke into houses and gutted victims with knives. You don't need a gun to break into a house

no but its easier to kill someone with a gun then a knife

[Bull]

There is no reason for a civilian to own a semi automatic gun! Period! The prohibition of same is in no way an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. Laws that control who and what kind of gun a person owns does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment. A law that prohibited private ownership of any gun would be an infringement. I like to hunt. I own guns. I do not carry. I have no need to.

[tovaris]

Ll semi automtiv or ful utomatic guns are alredy baned from being oned by individuals.
I like AKs калашников 4ever

[mattsmith48]

There is no reason for a civilian to own a semi automatic gun! Period! The prohibition of same is in no way an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. Laws that control who and what kind of gun a person owns does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment. A law that prohibited private ownership of any gun would be an infringement. I like to hunt. I own guns. I do not carry. I have no need to.

Hunting is the only good reason to own any kind of gun thats it

[USMC276]

no but its easier to kill someone with a gun then a knife

and its easier to defend yourself against someone with a knife.

If both parties have guns, the homeowner is at the advantage because he/she knows the layout and is on the defensive (better cover)

Hunting is the only good reason to own any kind of gun thats it

Statstistics speak differently.

Thousands of firearm defenses are committed each year.

Majority of law enforcement say they are happy to have citizens carry guns for self defense

There is no reason for a civilian to own a semi automatic gun! Period! The prohibition of same is in no way an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. Laws that control who and what kind of gun a person owns does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment. A law that prohibited private ownership of any gun would be an infringement. I like to hunt. I own guns. I do not carry. I have no need to.

so by your interpretation of the Second Amendment, the government can ban EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF FIREARM except .22lr bolt action rifles over 50 inches, because hey, the 2nd A says right to bare arms, and you can own .22lr bolt action rifle over 50 inches, <--- that's a gun, so its not an infringement?

Thats how you'll interpret it?

Pretty sure the founders made the right to bare arms the SECOND amendment because of how important it is. 22lr is for target shooting only. I don't think the founders wanted to guarantee our right to target shoot.

Time to interpret our constitution differently buddy.

Also, you want semi auto weapons banned? I imagine you want alcohol banned as well? no?

Posts merged. Next time, please use the "Edit" or "Multi" button. ~Elysium

[Bull]

so by your interpretation of the Second Amendment, the government can ban EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF FIREARM except .22lr bolt action rifles over 50 inches, because hey, the 2nd A says right to bare arms, and you can own .22lr bolt action rifle over 50 inches, <--- that's a gun, so its not an infringement?

Thats how you'll interpret it?

Pretty sure the founders made the right to bare arms the SECOND amendment because of how important it is. 22lr is for target shooting only. I don't think the founders wanted to guarantee our right to target shoot.

Time to interpret our constitution differently buddy.

Also, you want semi auto weapons banned? I imagine you want alcohol banned as well? no?

Yep, everyone who qualifies may own a musket according to the founding fathers and Ben Franklin says we all have the right to some beer. Not here to argue just to state my opinion. You stated yours. I stated mine. That's it. Done.

[USMC276]

Yep, everyone who qualifies may own a musket according to the founding fathers and Ben Franklin says we all have the right to some beer. Not here to argue just to state my opinion. You stated yours. I stated mine. That's it. Done.

i don't remember the constitution mentioning the word "musket"

here's what i do recall it saying

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

^
Do you see musket? Because I certainly don't.

[mattsmith48]

i don't remember the constitution mentioning the word "musket"

here's what i do recall it saying

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

^
Do you see musket? Because I certainly don't.

By that he means muskets were around when the constitution was written and signed by Jesus and George Washington on top of a dinosaur.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

They are talking about the states' militias and the people that are part of that militia to have a gun. Also ''to the security of a free state'' they put that in there so the southern state could protect them self easier if the Spanish had invaded. And thats not gonna happen today, no chance at all. The only reason to keep that is for the irony that because its so easy to have a gun to kill someone you dont feel safe or free

Its not because its in the constitution that its right and it cant and shouldnt be changed. Here in Canada one of the issues of this election is to change the constitution to abolish the senate. If we can figure how to fix something

[USMC276]

By that he means muskets were around when the constitution was written and signed by Jesus and George Washington on top of a dinosaur.



They are talking about the states' militias and the people that are part of that militia to have a gun. Also ''to the security of a free state'' they put that in there so the southern state could protect them self easier if the Spanish had invaded. And thats not gonna happen today, no chance at all. The only reason to keep that is for the irony that because its so easy to have a gun to kill someone you dont feel safe or free

Its not because its in the constitution that its right and it cant and shouldnt be changed. Here in Canada one of the issues of this election is to change the constitution to abolish the senate. If we can figure how to fix something

Computers weren't around when the constituion was created, so does that mean I can't practice my free speech the same way as I can do in real life?

By that he means muskets were around when the constitution was written and signed by Jesus and George Washington on top of a dinosaur.



They are talking about the states' militias and the people that are part of that militia to have a gun. Also ''to the security of a free state'' they put that in there so the southern state could protect them self easier if the Spanish had invaded. And thats not gonna happen today, no chance at all. The only reason to keep that is for the irony that because its so easy to have a gun to kill someone you dont feel safe or free

Its not because its in the constitution that its right and it cant and shouldnt be changed. Here in Canada one of the issues of this election is to change the constitution to abolish the senate. If we can figure how to fix something

By what interpretation matt?

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It clearly says the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, after the first half which talks about the militia.

Your interpreting a portion of our own constitution that you can't even understand.

The second Amendment was made for tyranny against one's own government. Its for protection against a government. "ohh, how can you fight off a military with tanks, planes, drones, and missiles?"

Well, the Taliban (which have made up around 300,000 militants) have been fighting off 10 super powers with all that fire power, for 10 years.

The right to bare arms prevents the government from really going too far. We have seen governments become corrupt everywhere. For example, we saw the corrupt leadership of the Czars in Russia (which unfortunately were replaced by a new corrupt system) but none the less, because of citizens being armed, they were able to overturn a government. There's a big reason why many dictators prevent their citizens from owning sufficient weapons. They don't want rebellion

Posts merged. Next time, please use the "Edit" or "Multi" button. ~Elysium

[phuckphace]

can I just say that interpretational squabbles over the Constitution are boring as fuck to read? it's like the Constitution is an ancient holy text that all these different sects like to pick apart and have slapfights over ("Creation in six LITERAL or FIGURATIVE 'days'?!" "what if a day is really like a thousand years maaaaaaaan" "Jesus never said snorting coke is a sin, check & mate Mr. Pastor!") on into absurdity.

here's what we do know: the Constitution was devised by and for powdered-wigged uber-WASPs over two centuries ago in a society so far removed from our own that it might as well have been on another planet/galaxy. in the time since we've seen unprecedented social and economic change that the Founding Fathers (peace be upon them) could not have predicted. that kind of individual liberty only works when your society is tiny, homogeneous, white, authentically religious and not atomized by technology and social decay. it needs an overhaul yesterday.

[dxcxdzv]

can I just say that interpretational squabbles over the Constitution are boring as fuck to read? it's like the Constitution is an ancient holy text that all these different sects like to pick apart and have slapfights over ("Creation in six LITERAL or FIGURATIVE 'days'?!" "what if a day is really like a thousand years maaaaaaaan" "Jesus never said snorting coke is a sin, check & mate Mr. Pastor!") on into absurdity.

here's what we do know: the Constitution was devised by and for powdered-wigged uber-WASPs over two centuries ago in a society so far removed from our own that it might as well have been on another planet/galaxy. in the time since we've seen unprecedented social and economic change that the Founding Fathers (peace be upon them) could not have predicted. that kind of individual liberty only works when your society is tiny, homogeneous, white, authentically religious and not atomized by technology and social decay. it needs an overhaul yesterday.
I'm pretty sure Darth Vader said the same thing before building the Death Star.

Are you only talking about the 2nd amendment? Or maybe something larger?
'Just want some examples of constitutional stuff that you think is archaic.

[mattsmith48]

By what interpretation matt?

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It clearly says the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, after the first half which talks about the militia.

Your interpreting a portion of our own constitution that you can't even understand.

The second Amendment was made for tyranny against one's own government. Its for protection against a government. "ohh, how can you fight off a military with tanks, planes, drones, and missiles?"

Well, the Taliban (which have made up around 300,000 militants) have been fighting off 10 super powers with all that fire power, for 10 years.

The right to bare arms prevents the government from really going too far. We have seen governments become corrupt everywhere. For example, we saw the corrupt leadership of the Czars in Russia (which unfortunately were replaced by a new corrupt system) but none the less, because of citizens being armed, they were able to overturn a government. There's a big reason why many dictators prevent their citizens from owning sufficient weapons. They don't want rebellion

Cuz the US goverment is not corrupt at all!

[lkc413]

So the problem isn't with the gun, or any other firearm for that matter. The problem is the ease at which someone can obtain these weapons. Taking weapons away at any level will only hurt people who use them responsibly from protecting not only them and their family, but often others as well.

What to do about it then?

Simple, there needs to be a national registry (private from government; i.e. outside law enforcement agencies) for all firearms. This is only for buying firearms, not those in current possession. Also, if you are a felon of any kind, sorry if this is harsh, you shouldn't be allowed to own any firearms period.

As for the millions of illegal firearms already in possession of criminals?

That's a little more tricky. Since law enforcement agencies can't just go up to a house and search it, there needs to be a new version of that law. If you have been charged with a felony in the past 15 years, you are to be searched once at a random time and date. The same goes for anyone with more than 3 misdemeanors in the past year (that is adequate space to allow your everyday traffic tickets to slide by). Also, if you have been charged with any drug crime within the past 5 years, the same should apply.

These ideas may seem harsh and unfair, however, you'll notice the law abiding citizens should have no problems with this method. Also, to fix gun violence, you can't simply ban guns, then you'll have mayhem. Take a look at some of the places in the country with gun bans or strict carry laws. They have higher gun violence than those where owning firearms are perfectly legal. That's my rant for the day, lol.

[Stronk Serb]

There is no reason for a civilian to own a semi automatic gun! Period! The prohibition of same is in no way an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. Laws that control who and what kind of gun a person owns does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment. A law that prohibited private ownership of any gun would be an infringement. I like to hunt. I own guns. I do not carry. I have no need to.

So you want to make bolt-action rifles, double-barrel, pump-action shotguns and flintlock muskets only legal? That is a limitation to self-defence

[USMC276]

Cuz the US goverment is not corrupt at all!

I seriously don't know if your being sarcastic or not

it doesn't matter how corrupt it is right now, the second amendment was put in place to prevent government from becoming extremely corrupt. And if it does cross that line, then the citizens have the weapons to combat that corrupt gov't.

There millions of gun owners in this country, and there are many military/police defectors that would join the side of the people in the very unlikely event of a GIANT rebellion

[mattsmith48]

it is pretty bad rightnow and its getting worse and there is no rebellion against the government and never will so why do woulld they need guns

[Phoenix718]

Basically, "assault weapons" are referred to as "military looking" semi automatic rifles. They function virtually exactly the same as a "regular" semi automatic rifle, so can someone explain why "assault weapons" should be banned or why they shouldn't be banned.

I think assault rifles, and all guns for that matter, should be illegal. The whole reason guns are legal in the US is so the public could fight back against a tyrannical government. But that was back when people used muskets. What will assault rifles do when the government has drones.

[Stronk Serb]

America is a ripe market for illegal gun trade. I think obtaining a high-end firearm shoul require more checks, and as someone mentioned, pour more funds into mental illness treatment.

[Just JT]

Most of the time burglars will wait for everyone to be out of the house before going in.



If you shoot someone 6 times its not self defense anymore its attempted murder. What else that woman could have done?... I don't know maybe get out of the house and call the cops. You Americans need to realize someone getting in your house doesn't always have to end with someone shooting someone else.

I'm not so sure I'd label this as an American problem, and, whether another countries culture likes it or not, someone breaking into a private home, and the residents have good cause to fear for their own safety or the same of their families, they have a right to protect themselves. And if it takes 6 bullets to stop that intruder, then that's what it takes to stop the intruder

[NzForever]

Fucking awesome

[mattsmith48]

I'm not so sure I'd label this as an American problem, and, whether another countries culture likes it or not, someone breaking into a private home, and the residents have good cause to fear for their own safety or the same of their families, they have a right to protect themselves. And if it takes 6 bullets to stop that intruder, then that's what it takes to stop the intruder

6 bullets is kinda excessive dont you think?

[Just JT]

Actually, no, I don't. You see, americans, and guns, they go together like camping, and a fire. They simply are 2 things that are, go together, and everyone has one. Do fires that cause injury and death, yeah, they do, when not proper looked after.
You can argue it's not a good comparisson, and you might be right. But what I e debated in other forums, and is never resolved is this. Owning and possessing a firearm in the U.S. is our right, something many other cultures simply can not understand, but it is true. I AM a strong supporter of stricter regulation of who can legally own guns, some people deserve to lose that right, fellons, drug dealers, sexual offenders etc.

Back on topic though, someone comes into my home, without permission, with intent to commit a crime, (burgler at 2 am, it's obvious) if I feel like my life or personal safety is at risk, or my FAMILY is at risk, no questions asked, lock and load, warn the intruder, let out a warning shot of need be. He don't leave, I really don't give a shit if he has a knife, gun, or water gun, he's takin' a round. If that don't stop him, he gets 2, repeat as needed.

Sounds pretty harsh I know, and part of this is a cultural thing in my opinion. It's who we are, and nobody's going to change that.

Education is a huge factor here to. Many people don't get the proper education of how to handle a gun, which causes problems. I've been exposed to, handled, fired, break down, clean, load own amo, etc, since I was outa diapers, peoperly, with respect of what a PERSON can do with a gun, not what a GUN can do.

When you consider how many guns there are in the U.S. Legally, and yeah, there are illegal guns to, probably just as many, it's a reality, but who's going to cause a problem with the U.S. Knowing that?

Couple years ago, the Boston marathon bombers, pretty well known shootout/manhunt right? Those guys were going nowhere after that, they couldn't get outa dodge if they had friends. Think about it.... Bad people deserve to have bad things done to them, not bad things done to good people. A bit of rough justice and off topic I understand. But in the end, guns keep good people safe from bad people with guns, and I'd rather have one and not need it, that need one and not have it. Because ya know, everyone's got one, crime is going down, self defense and gun ownership is our right, and it's not guna change.

Sorry to be so blunt and in your face and stuff, just don't see any other way tbh, they invade my home, they are not leaving the same way, Period.

[USMC276]

it is pretty bad rightnow and its getting worse and there is no rebellion against the government and never will so why do woulld they need guns

you don't know never

The Ukrainians rebelled against their government and got squashed because they had VERY few guns.

If they had the guns, they could have overthrown their corrupt government possibly even without serious fighting

6 bullets is kinda excessive dont you think?

When someone broke into your fucking house and they aren't dying, no, i don't think its excessive.

I think assault rifles, and all guns for that matter, should be illegal. The whole reason guns are legal in the US is so the public could fight back against a tyrannical government. But that was back when people used muskets. What will assault rifles do when the government has drones.

Look at the Taliban in the war on terror

they're pretty much illiterate cave dwellers with Aks, some RPGs and homemade explosives that have been fighting off TEN super powers for over ten years.

So you say, "what will assault rifles do when the government has drones?"

Well, it will do ALOT


Posts merged ~ Mike/ImCoolBeans

[Capto]

you don't know never

The Ukrainians rebelled against their government and got squashed because they had VERY few guns.

If they had the guns, they could have overthrown their corrupt government possibly even without serious fighting

You do know that Euromaidan succeeded in ousting Yanukovych, right?

[mattsmith48]

When someone broke into your fucking house and they aren't dying, no, i don't think its excessive.

He doesnt have to die and if you end up shooting the guy 1 time should be enough to keep him from hurting you or your familly


So you say, "what will assault rifles do when the government has drones?"

Well, it will do ALOT

What about against Tanks and fighting planes?

[Stronk Serb]

He doesnt have to die and if you end up shooting the guy 1 time should be enough to keep him from hurting you or your familly



What about against Tanks and fighting planes?

For tanks you can make improvised explosives, I mean in the Middle East people do it all the time. It's enough that you immobilize it so it stops being a threat because you can easily clear out the crew this way. About airplanes, fight in urban areas with lots of civilians and hope they are not assholes. It would be a hard fight which would probably fail, but victory is possible. Especially if you get a lot of defectors from the armed forces.

[mattsmith48]

About airplanes, fight in urban areas with lots of civilians and hope they are not assholes.
isnt exactly that the US do in the middle East

[Stronk Serb]

isnt exactly that the US do in the middle East

In case of a domestic uprising I doubt they would use airplanes due to fear of providing free manpower to the insurgents. The difference between the MiddleEast anda domestic uprising it that theuprisig is fought on American soil which complicattes things because each victoryseverely turns the odds less to the favor of the state.

[USMC276]

He doesnt have to die and if you end up shooting the guy 1 time should be enough to keep him from hurting you or your familly



What about against Tanks and fighting planes?

actually its better off shooting him until he is incapacitated because he might or might not have a weapon.

A family's life is more valuable than a burglar.
Enough with the silly concept that "every life is equally precious"

He doesnt have to die and if you end up shooting the guy 1 time should be enough to keep him from hurting you or your familly



What about against Tanks and fighting planes?

oh my God, you can literally not be serious with this question?

"What about against Tanks and fighting planes?" YES, that includes tanks and fighter planes. Are you not aware of the logistical support sent to Afghanistan? The Taliban have been withstanding EVERYTHING the military has been throwing at them.

You literally could not be serious with such a reply you just made


-Please do not double post. Use the "Edit" or "Multi-quote" buttons if you wish to add to your existing post. -Emerald Dream

[Miserabilia]

A family's life is more valuable than a burglar.
Enough with the silly concept that "every life is equally precious"


what about hitler and his family if they were robbed? ha sorry couldn't resist.

Seriously though this is a strange assumption. Like, a burglary isn't even something extremely moraly terrible like rape and murder. It's just taking something from someone's house.
Often enough the burglar is a member and provider of their own family, do they deserve to be shot and possibly killed for just a crime?

[USMC276]

what about hitler and his family if they were robbed? ha sorry couldn't resist.

Seriously though this is a strange assumption. Like, a burglary isn't even something extremely moraly terrible like rape and murder. It's just taking something from someone's house.
Often enough the burglar is a member and provider of their own family, do they deserve to be shot and possibly killed for just a crime?

oh my lord, it isn't about shooting the burglar for punishment, it's about shooting the burglar for self protection.

you DON'T know the persons intent (and you can assume they have a greater intent to harm you since they are committing a felony by breaking into your house) and you DON'T know their intent or if they are armed.

Why risk your life or your family's life for a low life criminal?

[Vlerchan]

I never fail to find it hilarious how arguments about assault weapons end up winding up discussing self defence in the home.

If you need an assault rifle in particular in order to feel safe against intruders you probably shouldn't be allowed a gun in the first place.