Obama calls for assault weapons ban

humiliated/? haha wrong. that guy who beat me i beat him as well, funny how you fail to menton that. besides i'd shut up i were you, chances are you would get owned by anyone in that game given your lack of knowledge of mk in general.

Secondly, yes i made that zaterra name however for a friend, i used it because he didnt want it, nor did he care so i figured since i made it at my place, why not? How you can't comprehend this boggles my mind, so i'll break it down for you to simplify things so perhaps you understand better:

MKF30-original name

Zaterra-made at my ip for a friend to use at his computer when i showed him the site he liked it so we made a fast name for him since his PC was down at the time, but hardly went on and told me i could use his name which i did when i could no longer post on MKF

Vaeternus-New name i purposely made.

Understand?

so not a lie. you lie about me though bigtime and have gotten banned yourself and just admitted you have multiple names, so again hypocrite much?

BTW, you just lied right now you keep saying "im ignoring you now" yet keep quoting me....

@Vaeternus said:

humiliated/? haha wrong. that guy who beat me i beat him as well, funny how you fail to menton that. besides i'd shut up i were you, chances are you would get owned by anyone in that game given your lack of knowledge of mk in general.

Secondly, yes i made that zaterra name however for a friend, i used it because he didnt want it, nor did he care so i figured since i made it at my place, why not?

so not a lie. you lie about me though bigtime and have gotten banned yourself and just admitted you have multiple names, so again hypocrite much?

My accounts were never banned for trolling and I never lied about the fact I had alternate accounts (which have been used in over 2 years). LOLLLLLL CAUGHT!

@Vance Astro said:

@Vaeternus said:

humiliated/? haha wrong. that guy who beat me i beat him as well, funny how you fail to menton that. besides i'd shut up i were you, chances are you would get owned by anyone in that game given your lack of knowledge of mk in general.

Secondly, yes i made that zaterra name however for a friend, i used it because he didnt want it, nor did he care so i figured since i made it at my place, why not? How you can't comprehend this boggles my mind, so i'll break it down for you to simplify things so perhaps you understand better:

MKF30-original name

Zaterra-made at my ip for a friend to use at his computer when i showed him the site he liked it so we made a fast name for him since his PC was down at the time, but hardly went on and told me i could use his name which i did when i could no longer post on MKF

Vaeternus-New name i purposely made.

Understand?

so not a lie. you lie about me though bigtime and have gotten banned yourself and just admitted you have multiple names, so again hypocrite much?

BTW, you just lied right now you keep saying "im ignoring you now" yet keep quoting me....

@nick_hero22 said:

@Vaeternus said:

humiliated/? haha wrong. that guy who beat me i beat him as well, funny how you fail to menton that. besides i'd shut up i were you, chances are you would get owned by anyone in that game given your lack of knowledge of mk in general.

Secondly, yes i made that zaterra name however for a friend, i used it because he didnt want it, nor did he care so i figured since i made it at my place, why not?

so not a lie. you lie about me though bigtime and have gotten banned yourself and just admitted you have multiple names, so again hypocrite much?

My accounts were never banned for trolling and I never lied about the fact I had alternate accounts (which have been used in over 2 years). LOLLLLLL CAUGHT!

Stop..both of you.

Yes, Sir

Yes you were, i asked mods about that already month+ ago, nice try nick. if you want i can post your old name. lol nobodys caught because i have nothing to hide, people have known for over a year now friends and mods too that I was posting under that name. Keep going off topic about alternate accounts kid, its funny. Terminator, master john, blood, myself et c all know about your paranoid delusions with "owee this guy is terminator, that guy is MKF, this guy is masterjohn" without proof not to mention nobody cares...but you

@Vaeternus said:

Yes you were, i asked mods about that already month+ ago, nice try nick. if you want i can post your old name. lol nobodys caught because i have nothing to hide, people have known for over a year now friends and mods too that I was posting under that name. Keep going off topic about alternate accounts kid, its funny. Terminator, master john, blood, myself et c all know about your paranoid delusions with "owee this guy is terminator, that guy is MKF without proof not to mention nobody cares...but you"

I have alts., but please ask the mods to tell you when the last time they were used (the only recent time a alternate was used was when I had to use one during a private discussion via PM with mods and staff). If you didn't care then why did you lie about your identity when you created this account, you made numerous claims that you weren't MKF30. I was banned for what I said about Vance Astro several years ago in one of the Debaters Hall Fame threads, my account was banned right after that comment I made about him.

Sorry Vance, but I had to call him out on that BS.

@nick_hero22 said:

@Vance Astro said:

@Vaeternus said:

humiliated/? haha wrong. that guy who beat me i beat him as well, funny how you fail to menton that. besides i'd shut up i were you, chances are you would get owned by anyone in that game given your lack of knowledge of mk in general.

Secondly, yes i made that zaterra name however for a friend, i used it because he didnt want it, nor did he care so i figured since i made it at my place, why not? How you can't comprehend this boggles my mind, so i'll break it down for you to simplify things so perhaps you understand better:

MKF30-original name

Zaterra-made at my ip for a friend to use at his computer when i showed him the site he liked it so we made a fast name for him since his PC was down at the time, but hardly went on and told me i could use his name which i did when i could no longer post on MKF

Vaeternus-New name i purposely made.

Understand?

so not a lie. you lie about me though bigtime and have gotten banned yourself and just admitted you have multiple names, so again hypocrite much?

BTW, you just lied right now you keep saying "im ignoring you now" yet keep quoting me....

@nick_hero22 said:

@Vaeternus said:

humiliated/? haha wrong. that guy who beat me i beat him as well, funny how you fail to menton that. besides i'd shut up i were you, chances are you would get owned by anyone in that game given your lack of knowledge of mk in general.

Secondly, yes i made that zaterra name however for a friend, i used it because he didnt want it, nor did he care so i figured since i made it at my place, why not?

so not a lie. you lie about me though bigtime and have gotten banned yourself and just admitted you have multiple names, so again hypocrite much?

My accounts were never banned for trolling and I never lied about the fact I had alternate accounts (which have been used in over 2 years). LOLLLLLL CAUGHT!

Stop..both of you.

Yes, Sir

Yep, no problem. just had to correct him on that, but yeah, check out your im when you get a chance.

I know Im not a alternate account, he thinks I am ,there's no proof.

Anyway, let's get back on topic: Would you like your semi-autos snatched away?

Anyway, let's get back on topic: Would you like your semi-autos snatched away?

Eff those who want to change the Constitution.

@nazareth, on the contrary it's not dumb to bring that up and not everyone in the government doesn't care,a lot do the ones who believe in the constitution.

Besides, not to mention the people care. That's wrong, the constitution hasn't been changed, where did you hear that? And if so not drastically,the radical libs want to change it which as long as there are those opposed won't happen..Obama wanted to change it permanently, that will never happen so good luck with that.

@MasterJohn said:

I know Im not a alternate account, he thinks I am ,there's no proof.

Anyway, let's get back on topic: Would you like your semi-autos snatched away?

Nope, of course where I live in nyc there's already gun bans, strict laws etc. But personally am not for gun bans for reasons already explained. I however have my slingshots and am not giving them up lol. ny also has laws on knive lengths and braced slingshots, which is ridiculous imo yet criminals still get them....

@Vaeternus Ah NYC, where Mayor Bloomberg wants to tell you where to live, what to do, what to think, what you can put in your body...

Increased survalience due to the patriot act..Occupy wallstreet. It's just horrendous. @NazarethSavage Semi autos are better, and quick to defend.

Take away all guns, I don't care, Criminals will STILL get them. Let's compare NYC's murder rate to cities that people would call "ghetto"

NYC's murders per day: 52.

Atlanta's murders per day: 42. Counting downtown, uptown, metro, suburbs.

Atlanta doesn't have strict gun control at all..Less murders.

Lets look at houston Texas, no strict gun laws at t'all. And it is considered one of the most safest cities in Texas and the southeastren U.S.

Have you been to Detriot, Chicago, or L.A.?

Total gun control and those people can't even defend themselves. Detriot ranks 1# in all crimes in America. I would NEVER want to live in Detriot, Chicago or LA....

And those are LIBERAL cities..*Sigh* What's wrong with Democrats?

That's wrong, the constitution hasn't been changed, where did you hear that? 

 @NazarethSavage Semi autos are better, and quick to defend.

Take away all guns, I don't care, Criminals will STILL get them. Let's compare NYC's murder rate to cities that people would call "ghetto"

NYC's murders per day: 52.

Atlanta's murders per day: 42. Counting downtown, uptown, metro, suburbs.

Atlanta doesn't have strict gun control at all..Less murders.

Lets look at houston Texas, no strict gun laws at t'all. And it is considered one of the most safest cities in Texas and the southeastren U.S.

Have you been to Detriot, Chicago, or L.A.?

Total gun control and those people can't even defend themselves. Detriot ranks 1# in all crimes in America. I would NEVER want to live in Detriot, Chicago or LA....

And those are LIBERAL cities..*Sigh* What's wrong with Democrats?

@nazareth, Amended and flat out changed permanently are two entirely different things. Obama wanted his healthcare bill to be passed permanantly so that no other future president can change it should it fail. Those opposed said, nope sorry cant do that.

@MasterJohn said:

@Vaeternus Ah NYC, where Mayor Bloomberg wants to tell you where to live, what to do, what to think, what you can put in your body...

Increased survalience due to the patriot act..Occupy wallstreet. It's just horrendous. @NazarethSavage Semi autos are better, and quick to defend.

Take away all guns, I don't care, Criminals will STILL get them. Let's compare NYC's murder rate to cities that people would call "ghetto"

NYC's murders per day: 52.

Atlanta's murders per day: 42. Counting downtown, uptown, metro, suburbs.

Atlanta doesn't have strict gun control at all..Less murders.

Lets look at houston Texas, no strict gun laws at t'all. And it is considered one of the most safest cities in Texas and the southeastren U.S.

Have you been to Detriot, Chicago, or L.A.?

Total gun control and those people can't even defend themselves. Detriot ranks 1# in all crimes in America. I would NEVER want to live in Detriot, Chicago or LA....

And those are LIBERAL cities..*Sigh* What's wrong with Democrats?

Yep, right you are my friend. Right you are, bloomberg is an idiot, the guy goes from democrat to republican to now independent but if you ask me, his heart lies with the initial party he joined...

The whole ban on soft drinks of a certain size is beyond dumb, has tons of nyc people angered. he should be warning people of red bull, monster etc if hes going to do that. Those drinks actually do harm you, but soda? I mean come on...there are people who dont even drink sodapop yet still get diabetes. My father a prime example.

oh and get this where I live in staten island new york, obama was here today big whoop. where was he 3 weeks ago when the devastation happened...oh yeah, campaigning lol. People here say well bloomberg told him to not come,as if obama couldn't override bloomberg. Not sure which one there was more stupid there. Being as how i live out here, believe me we needed help weeks ago not so much now. Now is the clean up, rebuilding etc for some folks no homes which sucks but there were days i walked home in the dark, literally

Crimes in nyc as you said, dont go down. My borough is the safest, but overall nyc gun rates go up, people get shot daily and thats with an already strict gun law in place...

Bottom line: This is a stupid move on Obama's part or anyone else(politician) who supports this. People only consider one thing "criminals" which is a flawed theory since murderers, criminals etc have existed LONG before firearms were even created by mankind. So good luck with that, next ban on free will?

@nick_hero22 said:

Banning Assault Weapons is good

This

I commend Obama for trying to move USA in the right direction.

So my fists are banned in the US? Nyahahahahaha!

Ah well...so much for my discussion points. :)

To my mind it's fairly simple (not easy, there's a difference). Yes, the CURRENT way many criminal get firearms is through "straw purchasing", but don't think for a second that if a gun ban is put in place they won't be able to get them, and use them anyway.

As for being able to defeat the military with small arms if martial law was enacted, of course that couldn't happen. However, the Colonial Army didn't defeat the British Army with small arms either. As I said, there is no way, and I mean NO WAY that many parts of the American Military would go along with attacking our citizens, and when the defections start we will often be talking about UNITS defecting (I was in the military for half my life, I still would be if I hadn't gotten so injured), they will be a rallying point for an already (mostly armed) Resistance. So yes, the part of the Second Amendement that deals with combatting opressive governments is still valid, at least a strong, viable potential. It IS true however, that anyone who thinks that getting a bunch of their buddies together with all their weapons and survival gear, and trying to take on the "loyalist" parts of the US Military (which WOULD be about a 65 to 75% majority...just my personal estimate) with assault rifles, and a few illegally purchased heavier munitions, and fighting "Red Dawn" style are going to get turned into a red mist, with a swiftness.

I've never been a hunter, I've killed enough thankyouverymuch, and I choose to not own a firearm (long story), however, I do KNOW hunters, and several of them use AR-15'a and AK varients. I can see the potential use for them (I probably wouldn't choose them myself, for practical reasons, but a gun is a tool, everyone prefers a different brand of tool I suppose). They are, or can be effective has hunting weapons, so THAT argument is out the window.

I DO think, (and there are NRA hardliners, and Government conspiracy theorists, who will balk at this) that people who own firearms should undergo training class. NOT familiarization classes, which are what most concealed carry classes are. This should be true ESPECIALLY for all handgun owners, since the ONLY purpose of handguns is self defense/shooting humans. Like someone earlier said, without proper training, a person with a handgun is as much a danger to themselves and bystanders as to a bad guy. Anyone owning an assault style weapon should be required to go through the same sort of class, for much the same reason.

Last thing. If you have any history of mental illness that relates to violence. Have ever been to prison for a violent crime (or possibly just been to prison), or ever been convicted of a violent crime but not been imprisoned, you don't get to legally own a gun...period. If you commit a crime with a firearm, you get the maximum sentence, period.

These, to me, are sensible firearm regulation laws.

What is the reasoning behind this ban?

What? I'm not allowed to own what is essentially a hunting rifle because its similar in design to an M16?

@MasterJohn: It sets a bad precedent. If semi-auto's get taken away then what's next?

Plus, rules are made for the public. Er, let me explain this better. If i knock on someones door and no one answers i'll leave or go to the next house or whatever. but a criminal won't care about that, he'll go inside anyway. My point here, is this: taking away semi-auto's won't stop criminals from getting Semi-Autos. They'll still get them, and innocents could get hurt further.

@Rogan2112 said:

Ah well...so much for my discussion points. :)

To my mind it's fairly simple (not easy, there's a difference). Yes, the CURRENT way many criminal get firearms is through "straw purchasing", but don't think for a second that if a gun ban is put in place they won't be able to get them, and use them anyway.

As for being able to defeat the military with small arms if martial law was enacted, of course that couldn't happen. However, the Colonial Army didn't defeat the British Army with small arms either. As I said, there is no way, and I mean NO WAY that many parts of the American Military would go along with attacking our citizens, and when the defections start we will often be talking about UNITS defecting (I was in the military for half my life, I still would be if I hadn't gotten so injured), they will be a rallying point for an already (mostly armed) Resistance. So yes, the part of the Second Amendement that deals with combatting opressive governments is still valid, at least a strong, viable potential. It IS true however, that anyone who thinks that getting a bunch of their buddies together with all their weapons and survival gear, and trying to take on the "loyalist" parts of the US Military (which WOULD be about a 65 to 75% majority...just my personal estimate) with assault rifles, and a few illegally purchased heavier munitions, and fighting "Red Dawn" style are going to get turned into a red mist, with a swiftness.

I've never been a hunter, I've killed enough thankyouverymuch, and I choose to not own a firearm (long story), however, I do KNOW hunters, and several of them use AR-15'a and AK varients. I can see the potential use for them (I probably wouldn't choose them myself, for practical reasons, but a gun is a tool, everyone prefers a different brand of tool I suppose). They are, or can be effective has hunting weapons, so THAT argument is out the window.

I DO think, (and there are NRA hardliners, and Government conspiracy theorists, who will balk at this) that people who own firearms should undergo training class. NOT familiarization classes, which are what most concealed carry classes are. This should be true ESPECIALLY for all handgun owners, since the ONLY purpose of handguns is self defense/shooting humans. Like someone earlier said, without proper training, a person with a handgun is as much a danger to themselves and bystanders as to a bad guy. Anyone owning an assault style weapon should be required to go through the same sort of class, for much the same reason.

Last thing. If you have any history of mental illness that relates to violence. Have ever been to prison for a violent crime (or possibly just been to prison), or ever been convicted of a violent crime but not been imprisoned, you don't get to legally own a gun...period. If you commit a crime with a firearm, you get the maximum sentence, period.

These, to me, are sensible firearm regulation laws.

You would have an excellent point if most people were morally responsible and thought before they actually made a decision.

@nick_hero22 said:

@Rogan2112 said:

Ah well...so much for my discussion points. :)

To my mind it's fairly simple (not easy, there's a difference). Yes, the CURRENT way many criminal get firearms is through "straw purchasing", but don't think for a second that if a gun ban is put in place they won't be able to get them, and use them anyway.

As for being able to defeat the military with small arms if martial law was enacted, of course that couldn't happen. However, the Colonial Army didn't defeat the British Army with small arms either. As I said, there is no way, and I mean NO WAY that many parts of the American Military would go along with attacking our citizens, and when the defections start we will often be talking about UNITS defecting (I was in the military for half my life, I still would be if I hadn't gotten so injured), they will be a rallying point for an already (mostly armed) Resistance. So yes, the part of the Second Amendement that deals with combatting opressive governments is still valid, at least a strong, viable potential. It IS true however, that anyone who thinks that getting a bunch of their buddies together with all their weapons and survival gear, and trying to take on the "loyalist" parts of the US Military (which WOULD be about a 65 to 75% majority...just my personal estimate) with assault rifles, and a few illegally purchased heavier munitions, and fighting "Red Dawn" style are going to get turned into a red mist, with a swiftness.

I've never been a hunter, I've killed enough thankyouverymuch, and I choose to not own a firearm (long story), however, I do KNOW hunters, and several of them use AR-15'a and AK varients. I can see the potential use for them (I probably wouldn't choose them myself, for practical reasons, but a gun is a tool, everyone prefers a different brand of tool I suppose). They are, or can be effective has hunting weapons, so THAT argument is out the window.

I DO think, (and there are NRA hardliners, and Government conspiracy theorists, who will balk at this) that people who own firearms should undergo training class. NOT familiarization classes, which are what most concealed carry classes are. This should be true ESPECIALLY for all handgun owners, since the ONLY purpose of handguns is self defense/shooting humans. Like someone earlier said, without proper training, a person with a handgun is as much a danger to themselves and bystanders as to a bad guy. Anyone owning an assault style weapon should be required to go through the same sort of class, for much the same reason.

Last thing. If you have any history of mental illness that relates to violence. Have ever been to prison for a violent crime (or possibly just been to prison), or ever been convicted of a violent crime but not been imprisoned, you don't get to legally own a gun...period. If you commit a crime with a firearm, you get the maximum sentence, period.

These, to me, are sensible firearm regulation laws.

You would have an excellent point if most people were morally responsible and thought before they actually made a decision.

I think he kind of covered that with the last few paragraphs.

@Rogan2112 said:

Ah well...so much for my discussion points. :)

To my mind it's fairly simple (not easy, there's a difference). Yes, the CURRENT way many criminal get firearms is through "straw purchasing", but don't think for a second that if a gun ban is put in place they won't be able to get them, and use them anyway.

As for being able to defeat the military with small arms if martial law was enacted, of course that couldn't happen. However, the Colonial Army didn't defeat the British Army with small arms either. As I said, there is no way, and I mean NO WAY that many parts of the American Military would go along with attacking our citizens, and when the defections start we will often be talking about UNITS defecting (I was in the military for half my life, I still would be if I hadn't gotten so injured), they will be a rallying point for an already (mostly armed) Resistance. So yes, the part of the Second Amendement that deals with combatting opressive governments is still valid, at least a strong, viable potential. It IS true however, that anyone who thinks that getting a bunch of their buddies together with all their weapons and survival gear, and trying to take on the "loyalist" parts of the US Military (which WOULD be about a 65 to 75% majority...just my personal estimate) with assault rifles, and a few illegally purchased heavier munitions, and fighting "Red Dawn" style are going to get turned into a red mist, with a swiftness.

I've never been a hunter, I've killed enough thankyouverymuch, and I choose to not own a firearm (long story), however, I do KNOW hunters, and several of them use AR-15'a and AK varients. I can see the potential use for them (I probably wouldn't choose them myself, for practical reasons, but a gun is a tool, everyone prefers a different brand of tool I suppose). They are, or can be effective has hunting weapons, so THAT argument is out the window.

I DO think, (and there are NRA hardliners, and Government conspiracy theorists, who will balk at this) that people who own firearms should undergo training class. NOT familiarization classes, which are what most concealed carry classes are. This should be true ESPECIALLY for all handgun owners, since the ONLY purpose of handguns is self defense/shooting humans. Like someone earlier said, without proper training, a person with a handgun is as much a danger to themselves and bystanders as to a bad guy. Anyone owning an assault style weapon should be required to go through the same sort of class, for much the same reason.

Last thing. If you have any history of mental illness that relates to violence. Have ever been to prison for a violent crime (or possibly just been to prison), or ever been convicted of a violent crime but not been imprisoned, you don't get to legally own a gun...period. If you commit a crime with a firearm, you get the maximum sentence, period.

These, to me, are sensible firearm regulation laws.

All very good points Rogan, except the training part. What does being trained with a gun have to do with anything? You see cops use their weapons wrong, or they shot bystanders when they are going after an "armed" criminaland they are supposedly trained in their usage. There is a big difference with being trained and being familiar. You can have all the training in the world, but if you don't practice with your weapon of choice your training doesn't mean anything.

Oh and we can argue about the effectiveness of a guerrilla style insurgency's effectiveness against the military all day but that's a totally different subject.

The point of a weapons ban is the disarm the citizen and make them more reliant on the over-militarized police force. It boggles the mind that people are still for weapons bans, when some of the worst people in the history of the world; Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-ill, and Pol Pot all believed and were supporters of a "disarmed" citizen.

There's a reason why there is never EVER A Shooting at An N.R.A. Meeting or a Gun show...

@shadowknight666 said:

There's a reason why there is never EVER A Shooting at An N.R.A. Meeting or a Gun show...

Not quite so my friend. Not sure if was an actual NRA gun show. But there was a gun show up in the northern mid west where some genius father AND a firearms "instructor" allowed a FIVE YEAR OLD to shoot a full auto Uzi. For those who don't know, the recoil on an Uzi goes straight UP. The child either didn't KNOW this, or wasn't strong enough to prevent it, he pulled the trigger and the rounds started blasting raising the barrel in an arc straight up and into the boy's HEAD. Now there's a poor dead child because a DUMB ASS "father" and more DUMB ASS "gun expert, thought it would be cool to let little Timmy fire off a highly lethal "toy:...sighs

@Rogan2112: That might be true, But that really isn't a shooting. What that means is that we need parents to be more responsible, Nothing to do with guns

@Nova`Prime`: Well, guerilla style insurgencies seem to have worked quite well in places like Viet Nam, Afghanistan (many times), El Salvador, etc...the only place it HASN'T worked in modern times was in Maylasia with the British in the 50's and 60's. There really wasn't much to speak of in the way of humanitarian violations, but they did the hard things necessary to stop an insurgency. Things that we could never do because it would be all over the news and people would be screaming we're violating their "civil rights" by making them conform to strict curfews and multiple checkpoints, etc.

Anyway...no a one time, no BS training class isn't going to completely solve the problem, but it would help a great deal.

Laar thing for all the pro assult weapon folks out there. (again, I'm not really anit assault weapon, I'm just for RESPONSIBLE use if owned) the average assault rifle (AR-15...any of the AK, or SKS varients) have a LOT more power, velocity, pentration ability, and RANGE, than even the largest pistols. You crack off a round with an AR-15, unless your life is in IMMEDIATE danger, you'd better darn well be aware of your field of fire. Even if you hit the bad guy, the round is likely to tear through him/her like paper, go THROUGh the house across the street (IF it doesn't hit anyone in THAT house, and possibly end it's journey inside an old lady sitting in her kitchen window two blocks over. Again, just thought.

@shadowknight666: True enough. I was just responding to the comment that there has never been someone shot at an NRA show/event (which I must point out, I don't know if this WAS NRA sponsored)

@Rogan2112: Aye, I Wasn't saying no one had been shot, I was just saying that there has been no killing spree ever occurred at an area where guns are highly populated.

Now if we were to make every single populated area on earth like that, By allowing people that are completely normal to carry their gun around, That will limit the potentials of shootings SEVERELY.

Nowadays, Shootings almost (Watch my words there) exclusively occur at "Gun Free Zones." Why? Because the shooter is SURE No one is going to fire back.

I would consider my self somewhat on the "right" but am fully willing for assault weapons to be banned. Hell I say stop making them.

Ain't no lobby from the left or right or industry important enough to make me feel otherwise.

@kuonphobos: The only problem with banning assault weapons is there is no definition for what constitutes an assault weapon. If you refer to one of my previous posts there is a picture of two shotguns.. same model.. just cosmetic changes and one is considered an assault weapon the other is not.

@nick_hero22 said:

The 2nd Amendment needs to be discarded because it is absolutely irrelevant to today's society and is completely out of touch with the modern world. The Police Department is well equipped with the necessary training and gear to prevent most criminal activity if reported, if you are fearful of a intruder in your home then buy an alarm which is like what $10 a month to have it uplinked to a local precinct and I could guarantee that 99.9% of the time an alarm going off would deter most criminals (most criminals would quickly flee the scene) and you can also minimize the risk of a intrusion by properly securing you home. Just by having a gun doesn't always means that you are safe. What if the robbers see you with the gun and shoots you first, which could be avoided if you had an alarm. Even if the government went rogue and turned on its citizen then the government went rogue and turned on its citizen, there nothing no one would be able to do about. To think that a group of hillbillies with shotguns could even be considered a nuisance to the most powerful Military to the world who has stealth bombers, tanks, high-tech assault weaponry, bulletproof armor and vehicle, drones, and smart missiles is retarded. This Amendment was relevant during the time of its creation when people were a lot more isolated and didn't have police departments, modern technology, and the government had much less power in terms of military force, during that time a band of citizens who were armed could cause a problem to there government, but that is virtually impossible now. This Amendment needs to be discarded in favor of another Amendment that would allow the citizens of the United States to exert more influence in terms of the way they are governed, so people can have a much bigger say so in terms of the laws that are created by Congress. Guns cause way more problems then what they actually fix, this should be very obvious based off previous news.

This might be one of the dumbest posts I've ever read in my life.

1. How long does it take for the police to come? 7-10mins. If you are outside of city limits....20mins

2. What about the times that you are outside your house with the alarm?

3. Hilly-billys with shotguns.....are your military

4. Guns are not a evil...they are a tool. A hammer can fix your house or bash your head in. A gun can hunt or protect your family or yes in the hands of the wrong person kill .

If it's not guns it's baseball bats, it's cross bows, there is always something that will be used for someone to take something from another. ...... I will defend my family and myself. If you don't believe me check out the sell of baseball bats in England during the riots a couple years ago.

BTW why not ban hunting rifles. I could kill someone from close to 1,000 yrds with my .308 my AR-15 I'd only feel comfortable at around 400-500

So do any of you actually know what an Assault Weapon is? Do you have any idea how the government defines them?

Do any of you know what a barrel sheath is and why they think they should be banned?

Also for any super high powered weaponary you have to have a class 3 license.

Also ..... more hogs are killed with Ar-15s that any other weapon. (btw wild hogs are one of Americas biggest issues right now.)

It should be our natural rights as humans to do whatever we want to make us feel safe, So long as it doesn't cause a negative effect in the process. Everything else is bullsh!t.

@_Hawk_ said:

@nick_hero22 said:

The 2nd Amendment needs to be discarded because it is absolutely irrelevant to today's society and is completely out of touch with the modern world. The Police Department is well equipped with the necessary training and gear to prevent most criminal activity if reported, if you are fearful of a intruder in your home then buy an alarm which is like what $10 a month to have it uplinked to a local precinct and I could guarantee that 99.9% of the time an alarm going off would deter most criminals (most criminals would quickly flee the scene) and you can also minimize the risk of a intrusion by properly securing you home. Just by having a gun doesn't always means that you are safe. What if the robbers see you with the gun and shoots you first, which could be avoided if you had an alarm. Even if the government went rogue and turned on its citizen then the government went rogue and turned on its citizen, there nothing no one would be able to do about. To think that a group of hillbillies with shotguns could even be considered a nuisance to the most powerful Military to the world who has stealth bombers, tanks, high-tech assault weaponry, bulletproof armor and vehicle, drones, and smart missiles is retarded. This Amendment was relevant during the time of its creation when people were a lot more isolated and didn't have police departments, modern technology, and the government had much less power in terms of military force, during that time a band of citizens who were armed could cause a problem to there government, but that is virtually impossible now. This Amendment needs to be discarded in favor of another Amendment that would allow the citizens of the United States to exert more influence in terms of the way they are governed, so people can have a much bigger say so in terms of the laws that are created by Congress. Guns cause way more problems then what they actually fix, this should be very obvious based off previous news.

This might be one of the dumbest posts I've ever read in my life.

1. How long does it take for the police to come? 7-10mins. If you are outside of city limits....20mins

2. What about the times that you are outside your house with the alarm?

3. Hilly-billys with shotguns.....are your military

4. Guns are not a evil...they are a tool. A hammer can fix your house or bash your head in. A gun can hunt or protect your family or yes in the hands of the wrong person kill .

If it's not guns it's baseball bats, it's cross bows, there is always something that will be used for someone to take something from another. ...... I will defend my family and myself. If you don't believe me check out the sell of baseball bats in England during the riots a couple years ago.

BTW why not ban hunting rifles. I could kill someone from close to 1,000 yrds with my .308 my AR-15 I'd only feel comfortable at around 400-500

Correction, this has to be the dumbest response to anything on Comic Vine or the Internet. You get a 2/10, try harder next time.

1) What I was trying to say is that Police Officers are more qualified to handle delicate situations as such whereas a civilian who doesn't have extensive training or experience in handling scenarios as such would somewhat become a liability. This kind of irresponsibility and impulsiveness would do more harm than good such as a innocent bystander being caught in the cross-fires of the confrontation or the wanna-be vigilante getting themselves injured trying to play superhero or a combination of both. This could all be avoid if people would 1) Stop to thoroughly analyze a situation and then make proper inferences 2) Respond appropriately to the inferences they just made instead of wanting around idly then trying to make a proper response when things start to hit the proverbial "fan" i.e. Reporting suspicious activity and not waiting until things have escalated to a boiling point. In regards to personal security a alarm or taking the time to properly secure your domain would deter most criminal since they would want to target homes and property that would be much easier to infiltrate and leave unnoticed, an alarm would send 99% of criminals running.

2) If you are suspicious of someone motives and behavior then the most appropriate response would be to alert someone in the general vicinity instead of putting your life and the lives of others in danger trying to engage someone in a fire fight. Responding during a initial suspicion would allow the Police Officers the time necessary to arrive and apprehend the suspect.

3) False, the USA Military devotes billions of dollars to continuously improving their training methods, infrastructure, and technology that is accessible to military personnel. To sit here and try to make a comparison between a well-trained and seasoned soldier to a deer hunter is completely utterly asinine and shows that you are deluded in your thoughts.

4) You are right guns aren't evil, but the problem is that people can do evil things especially when they have a gun in close proximity to them which makes it more tempting to go out and take things into their own hands or impulsive behaviors that won't benefit them nor society. Human beings have a tendency to let their emotions cloud their judgement and when you put a gun in their hands you are essentially asking for trouble. The ability to take a life with the slight move of a finger is in my opinion horrid and no one should have that kind of power because once a life is good there is no way to bring that person back.

Comparing a gun to a blunt object is ludicrous as well. Blunt objects require the perpetrators to be in close proximity which means that A) Someone would have the opportunity to flee the scene before they are assault B) The victim has a chance to fight back or get some help to restraint the perpetrator since blunt objects are much slower and often very predictable and being hit with one is a definite kill or severe injury.

I think that all guns should be ban in my honest opinion, but I would willing to allow them for the use of hunting rifles for recreational purposes if the person is in a isolated setting (forests, jungle, and etc.) and has a permit or license to handle a rifle which means going through the necessary background checks.

@nick_hero22

I think that all guns should be ban in my honest opinion, but I would willing to allow for the use of hunting rifles for recreational purposes if the person is in a isolated setting (forests, jungle, and etc.)

And this is why I hope you never get the chance to become President of the United States.

Lets say guns are banned like they are in Chicago, L.A, Detriot, you know how great those cities are? Detriot number 1 murder rate in the nation..Isn't it such a great city?

Even if you ban guns, Criminals will get them.. There's also thieves that are highly trained in Martial arts and can use: Throwing knives, swords, axes. I guess your going to ban Martial arts too?

Ban swords also? Ban crossbows? They can have someone down in a second, like a gun can.

I think you'd like it if Obama signed the UN gun ban treaty in to law, international law banning guns. You'd probably have your "I love Obama hat" on, and would scream in joy at Obama dismantaling our second amendment...

Stay away from law biding American citizens with guns, liberal. And were a so called "Ron Paul" supporter? Goodness.

@Nova`Prime` said:

@kuonphobos: The only problem with banning assault weapons is there is no definition for what constitutes an assault weapon. If you refer to one of my previous posts there is a picture of two shotguns.. same model.. just cosmetic changes and one is considered an assault weapon the other is not.

Then there needs to be a clear definition. No doubt about it. But I think common sense would determine that military grade weapons should be banned and highly regulated. One doesn't need an assault weapon (high caliber/multifire) in order to hunt or defend one's home.

The penalties for possession should be very harsh as well. But all this coming as marijuana is being legalized seems meaningless to me.

But on that note I would support legalization of marijuana as well as a strenuous bann on assault weapons. I am not generally in favor of too much government regulation but a ban on assault weapons is a no brainer for me.

@MasterJohn said:

@nick_hero22

I think that all guns should be ban in my honest opinion, but I would willing to allow for the use of hunting rifles for recreational purposes if the person is in a isolated setting (forests, jungle, and etc.)

And this is why I hope you never get the chance to become President of the United States.

Lets say guns are banned like they are in Chicago, L.A, Detriot, you know how great those cities are? Detriot number 1 murder rate in the nation..Isn't it such a great city?

Even if you ban guns, Criminals will get them.. There's also thieves that are highly trained in Martial arts and can use: Throwing knives, swords, axes. I guess your going to ban Martial arts too?

Ban swords also? Ban crossbows? They can have someone down in a second, like a gun can.

I think you'd like it if Obama signed the UN gun ban treaty in to law, international law banning guns. You'd probably have your "I love Obama hat" on, and would scream in joy at Obama dismantaling our second amendment...

Stay away from law biding American citizens with guns, liberal. And were a so called "Ron Paul" supporter? Goodness.

1) I could almost guarantee I would be a much more efficient and a more competent President than you would be if given the chance because this is coming from a guy who is known to flood the Battle Forums with mismatches and spite threads.

2) It's pointless to bans guns if you aren't going to place the proper regulations in place and utilize the appropriate types of strategies to see to it that guns are taken off the street. I have pretty much explained what the government could do to maximize its success when dealing with firearm.

3) I have already addressed this, in order to use melee weapons the perpetrator has to get close to the victim which leaves ample time for the victim to escape or to call for help for nearby pedestrians. A person with a melee object is much more manageable than a person with a firearm and most blunt objects are very noticeable except for small pocket knives which require extremely close proximity.

4) I have already addressed my concerns with the Second Amendment, so this point was completely irrelevant and unnecessary.

5) Stop Trolling

Criteria of an Assault Weapon according to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (from wikipedia)

Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:

I didn't know much about this but it might swing the debate on this back to relevant material and from all the false bravado....

I can't get the features from above to post so

HERE is the link.....

But what makes them more deadly, that's the real question. You already need a class 3 license for the majority of actual assault weapons, fully automatic, shorter then 16 inches, noise suppressors and the like. And criminals still get their hands on those and they come with hefty prison sentences of minimum 10 years in most states, the restrictions aren't working, so the answer is more restrictions on the honest citizen? So in the end the only people with weapons are the cops and criminals. And considering the average arrival time of most police forces is between 10 to 15 minutes, that's a lot of time for an armed intruder to do a lot of damage to you and your family and frankly I am not willing to take that risk.

@Nova`Prime` said:

But what makes them more deadly, that's the real question. You already need a class 3 license for the majority of actual assault weapons, fully automatic, shorter then 16 inches, noise suppressors and the like. And criminals still get their hands on those and they come with hefty prison sentences of minimum 10 years in most states, the restrictions aren't working, so the answer is more restrictions on the honest citizen? So in the end the only people with weapons are the cops and criminals. And considering the average arrival time of most police forces is between 10 to 15 minutes, that's a lot of time for an armed intruder to do a lot of damage to you and your family and frankly I am not willing to take that risk.

This was already addressed.

"What I was trying to say is that Police Officers are more qualified to handle delicate situations as such whereas a civilian who doesn't have extensive training or experience in handling scenarios as such would somewhat become a liability. This kind of irresponsibility and impulsiveness would do more harm than good such as a innocent bystander being caught in the cross-fires of the confrontation or the wanna-be vigilante getting themselves injured trying to play superhero or a combination of both. This could all be avoid if people would 1) Stop to thoroughly analyze a situation and then make proper inferences 2) Respond appropriately to the inferences they just made instead of wanting around idly then trying to make a proper response when things start to hit the proverbial "fan" i.e. Reporting suspicious activity and not wanting until things have escalated to a boiling point. In regards to personal security a alarm or taking the time to properly secure your domain would deter most criminal since they would want to target homes and property that would be much easier to infiltrate and leave unnoticed, an alarm would send 99% of criminals running."

"If you are suspicious of someone motives and behavior then the most appropriate response would be to alert someone in the general vicinity instead of putting your life and the lives of others in danger trying to engage someone in a fire fight. Responding during a initial suspicion would allow the Police Officers the time necessary to arrive and apprehend the suspect."

@nick_hero22 I'm not trolling. I am just advising: Stay away from Farmers and law-biding Americans that want to keep their guns..

Where I live, if I told someone "I want to ban guns and repeal the second amendment", they'd probably keep me out of their life, property, and everything to do with them forever.

1) I could almost guarantee I would be a much more efficient and a more competent President than you would be if given the chance because this is coming from a guy who is known to flood the Battle Forums with mismatches and spite threads.

That is irrelevant and not useful ammo in artillery in this argument. I have 7 people following me around trolling my threads on the battle forums. I can deal with you, and you accusing me of being an alternate account then dealing with those rude, bullies who probably got F's in school.

2) It's pointless to bans guns if you aren't going to place the proper regulations in place and utilize the appropriate types of strategies to see to it that guns are taken off the street. I have pretty much explained what the government could do to maximize its success when dealing with firearm.

The things you are advising won't come to pass, as long as there is a Republican house.

3) I have already addressed this, in order to use melee weapons the perpetrator has to get close to the victim which leaves ample time for the victim to escape or to call for help for nearby pedestrians. A person with a melee object is much more manageable than a person with a firearm and most blunt objects are very noticeable except for small pocket knives which require extremely close proximity.

I've fired a crossbow, a pedestrian is not fast enough to escape a speeding arrow, and the arrow could fracture their skull, spine, or back.

So they don't have to get too close.

@nick_hero22: Just because the Government spends all this money on training doesn't make Hawk's statement untrue. Training does not negate heritage. You can be in the military and still be a gun toting hillbilly.

Besides, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

@MasterJohn said:

@nick_hero22 I'm not trolling. I am just advising: Stay away from Farmers and law-biding Americans that want to keep their guns..

Where I live, if I told someone "I want to ban guns and repeal the second amendment", they'd probably keep me out of their life, property, and everything to do with them forever.

1) I could almost guarantee I would be a much more efficient and a more competent President than you would be if given the chance because this is coming from a guy who is known to flood the Battle Forums with mismatches and spite threads.

That is irrelevant and not useful ammo in artillery in this argument. I have 7 people following me around trolling my threads on the battle forums. I can deal with you, and you accusing me of being an alternate account then dealing with those rude, bullies who probably got F's in school.

2) It's pointless to bans guns if you aren't going to place the proper regulations in place and utilize the appropriate types of strategies to see to it that guns are taken off the street. I have pretty much explained what the government could do to maximize its success when dealing with firearm.

The things you are advising won't come to pass, as long as there is a Republican house.

3) I have already addressed this, in order to use melee weapons the perpetrator has to get close to the victim which leaves ample time for the victim to escape or to call for help for nearby pedestrians. A person with a melee object is much more manageable than a person with a firearm and most blunt objects are very noticeable except for small pocket knives which require extremely close proximity.

I've fired a crossbow, a pedestrian is not fast enough to escape a speeding arrow, and the arrow could fracture their skull, spine, or back.

So they don't have to get too close.

Everything you said is pretty much irrelevant and a cross-bow is not something you could easily hide in public and it takes a several seconds to load and aim.

@Kiara_Sullivan said:

@nick_hero22: Just because the Government spends all this money on training doesn't make Hawk's statement untrue. Training does not negate heritage. You can be in the military and still be a gun toting hillbilly.

Besides, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I was making a reference to the rednecks who think by owning a gun that they are "Superman" and are experts in conventional warfare despite not having every participated in a war. I have already addressed the "people kill people" topic in a previous post.

@Kiara_Sullivan said:

@nick_hero22: Just because the Government spends all this money on training doesn't make Hawk's statement untrue. Training does not negate heritage. You can be in the military and still be a gun toting hillbilly.

Besides, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I believe my family ...all military of some sort.... can attest to that. Though we prefer redneck to hillbilly.

I don't really feel like typing but I'll speak shortly.

1. The people who are making these laws are not gun owners, they don't know what they are banning or whether what they are trying to ban even has any effect on whether or not the part of the weapon being banned makes it more deadly. (ie barrel sheath, pistol grip, ect)

2. I don't have any issues with fully automatic weapons being highly restricted.....which they already are.

3. Assault rifles are used for several different types of hunts. Hogs are the most common, coyotes, deer, couger, ....I can go on but it's pointless

4. Banning "automatic reload" weapons...or semi auto to anyone who is of any knowledge, would ban shotguns used for sports, 99% of current handguns, and actually less rifles than anything.

5. Carrying a weapon - Most states require a background check and training for CC. Here are a couple stats.

Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states

The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states

The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher in the restrictive states

Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen 21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%

Last thing I really want to say is: What other rights exactly do we feel like giving up? Who gets to say that just cause you don't like that I have guns means that you can change my rights?

We have already had so many "freedoms" taken away, now they are trying to take away a "Right".

@_Hawk_ said:

@Kiara_Sullivan said:

@nick_hero22: Just because the Government spends all this money on training doesn't make Hawk's statement untrue. Training does not negate heritage. You can be in the military and still be a gun toting hillbilly.

Besides, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I believe my family ...all military of some sort.... can attest to that. Though we prefer redneck to hillbilly.

I don't really feel like typing but I'll speak shortly.

1. The people who are making these laws are not gun owners, they don't know what they are banning or whether what they are trying to ban even has any effect on whether or not the part of the weapon being banned makes it more deadly. (ie barrel sheath, pistol grip, ect)

2. I don't have any issues with fully automatic weapons being highly restricted.....which they already are.

3. Assault rifles are used for several different types of hunts. Hogs are the most common, coyotes, deer, couger, ....I can go on but it's pointless

4. Banning "automatic reload" weapons...or semi auto to anyone who is of any knowledge, would ban shotguns used for sports, 99% of current handguns, and actually less rifles than anything.

5. Carrying a weapon - Most states require a background check and training for CC. Here are a couple stats.

Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states

The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states

The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher in the restrictive states

Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen 21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%

Last thing I really want to say is: What other rights exactly do we feel like giving up? Who gets to say that just cause you don't like that I have guns means that you can change my rights?

We have already had so many "freedoms" taken away, now they are trying to take away a "Right".

I don't care how many statistics you post that still doesn't change the fact that if the laws aren't properly enforced and supported then it's pointless in banning guns, and you would have a failed system like you see in many states. Rights have to be regulated when people abuse them to an absurd degree and start to cause harm to the very fabric of society which is the people who inhabit it. True Democracy is essentially anarchy and would never work in a extremely populated urban area or pretty much anywhere else where their is a significant number of people present.

@nick_hero22: I have no issue with anything you said there. Laws should be made to insure that lawful citizens are safer...without violating their rights. When people do abuse their rights or violate other then actions have to be taken on those individuals.

@_Hawk_: I love you lol

@_Hawk_ said:

@nick_hero22: I have no issue with anything you said there. Laws should be made to insure that lawful citizens are safer...without violating their rights. When people do abuse their rights or violate other then actions have to be taken on those individuals.

I have pretty much addressed most of your points and based off of previous mass murders that could have been prevented if gun laws were stricter makes it pretty obvious that the 2nd Amendment needs to be addressed.

@nick_hero22: Gun laws are pretty strict. It's not the laws that are at fault it's the accessibility of the weapons of themselves. There's been a documentary done about that not too long ago. One of the men who was shot during the Virginia Tech shootings went across America buying guns. People are greedy and the fact is that he bought guns without showing ID. All because he flashed cash. Our problem isn't the weapons. It's the people who sell them and use them for nefarious things. Even if the 2nd Amendment was addressed there is still a black market that would make it just as easy to access any sort of weapon. Even the Government cannot control that. We see how well they do with drug enforcement.

@Kiara_Sullivan said:

@nick_hero22: Gun laws are pretty strict. It's not the laws that are at fault it's the accessibility of the weapons of themselves. There's been a documentary done about that not too long ago. One of the men who was shot during the Virginia Tech shootings went across America buying guns. People are greedy and the fact is that he bought guns without showing ID. All because he flashed cash. Our problem isn't the weapons. It's the people who sell them and use them for nefarious things. Even if the 2nd Amendment was addressed there is still a black market that would make it just as easy to access any sort of weapon. Even the Government cannot control that. We see how well they do with drug enforcement.

I agree with this and feel the only solution is to reduce the number of military grade weapons being produced. Once they are made they can be obtained.

BUT how on earth could we begin to reduce the number of these weapons being produced in other countries?

It really is a no win situation. A real deterrent needs to be found that makes it so incredibly difficult to obtain these weapons and so incredibly painful to possess them that even criminals fear owning them. IMO of course.

And I totally support the right to own and bear firearms. I just don't think these "WMDs" (military grade weapons) are necessary.