Obama calls for assault weapons ban, background checks. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39245246]I'm not sure that's true but I 100% believe that banning guns is going to have a minimal impact on crime.[/QUOTE] Well it's a gross over-exaggeration. I'm just trying to say that guns and hunting knifes aren't the only way to murder mass amounts of people.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245290]See, the sad thing is this is the argument I've gotten from a ton of people, they legitimately fear a second hitler and the government becoming some violent dictatorship, it is beyond ridiculous.[/QUOTE] I know right.

These two rifles are the same thing, but some people with an IQ on the lower side would think one is an "assault rifle" (Bushmaster .223) [IMG]http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/3618/143956641.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1742/10182805.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Scot;39245277]Do you seriously believe that because if so I think you need to get your head checked immediately. I am worried for your health.[/QUOTE] Do I believe that you said that they are less effective? Yes.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245268]Actually I've done my own research, I had to write many a paper and even a mock bill on assault weapons. Seriously, just because we don't agree doesn't mean I'm a pawn of "sensationalist media". Not everyone that disagrees with you is an idiot, just saying.[/QUOTE] Assault weapons are not a thing, if you can prove to me that assault weapons are more lethal than any other type of firearm then we'll talk.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39245244]What is an "assault weapon" in your mind? Can't everything be an assault weapon if you use it as a weapon to assault someone? Just because a weapon is military [I]style[/I] does not make it an assault weapon.[/QUOTE] I'm no gun expert but I believe when assault weapon bills are passed they choose specific models of guns that constitute such based on their aesthetics and physical capabilities.

The second amendment is intended to arm the population with firearms capable of killing government forces. Their effectiveness at killing human beings is the chief argument for keeping them, not banning them. Our violent crime rate is quite low, significantly lower than the UK, we merely have a higher mortality rate. Which is crap and all, except the mortality rate is still quite low. Add that to the fact that we have a shitton more people, more population centers, and a lower national population density and we are doing very well. So not only is crime largely irrelevant in any discussion here, it is also not even a valid argument for gun control. The numbers do not support it in any capacity. We have the right to ensure the power remains in the hands of the people. You can bitch and moan about a modern revolution being impossible, but the truth is that you can't even begin to control an almost completely armed population. You can sit in your ivory tower and issue orders, but men carry them out and men tend to be quite vulnerable to bullets.

[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39245286]Didn't Clinton make an AWB, and didn't it only run out recently? How did you guys live during that time it was banned?[/QUOTE] Well I wasn't old enough then to purchase a weapon anyway so it didn't effect me personally. But I know a lot of manufacturers exploited loopholes so the ban was essentially worthless anyway. Just pissed off law-abiding gun owners. Didn't save lives.

[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39245286]Didn't Clinton make an AWB, and didn't it only run out recently? How did you guys live during that time it was banned?[/QUOTE] Yes, in 1994 there was an assault weapons ban which consisted of officals banning guns that looked "scary". It expired in 2004. The number of mass shootings dropped from 46 in the 1990s to 23 in 2000s.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39245315]Assault weapons are not a thing, if you can prove to me that assault weapons are more lethal than any other type of firearm then we'll talk.[/QUOTE] They're weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, we all know what kinds of weapons these are. Military-styled or what have you, they don't belong on the streets. Massachusetts passed an AWB a few years back and have one of the lowest gun murder rates of the nation.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39245298]These two rifles are the same thing, but some people with an IQ on the lower side would think one is an "assault rifle" (Bushmaster .223) [IMG]http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/3618/143956641.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1742/10182805.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Caliber doesn't make 2 rifles the same thing, heres a more comparable example I put up a long time ago. [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39080172]Tactical weapon of war with the [I]express[/I] purpose of killing people [IMG]http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/images/5846.jpg[/IMG] Uncle Steve's hunting rifle [IMG]http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/39012.jpg[/IMG] Deadly cop killing assault rife [IMG]http://img01.militaryblog.jp/usr/arablog/akm_black_right.jpg[/IMG] Uncle Donny's hunting rifle [IMG]http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2012/10/28/632033_01_norinco_ak_hunter_7_62x39mm_640.jpg[/IMG] Seal team six assault rifle [IMG]http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/attachments/guns-hunting/154200d1338722596-ruger-10-22-modders-owners-thread-001.jpg[/IMG] Uncle Ray's hunting rifle [IMG]http://guns.wolfcrews.com/ruger_10_22/ruger10-22-1a.jpg[/IMG] Guns can only kill people, obviously. [sp]In case you can't see what I'm getting at here, all these pairs of rifles are based on the same action, the only difference between them is their pistol grips, and color.[/sp][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=GunFox;39245324]the truth is that you can't even begin to control an almost completely armed population[/QUOTE] Which is why it's such a terrible notion.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39245232]I'll explain why I seriously do when you explain why a citizen needs a sports car than tops out above 150mph[/QUOTE] See, I don't think they're needed either. We're in agreement on that one.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245352]They're weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, we all know what kinds of weapons these are. Military-styled or what have you, they don't belong on the streets. Massachusetts passed an AWB a few years back and have one of the lowest gun murder rates of the nation.[/QUOTE] Except "military style weapons" account for less than a % of homicide, handguns are the actual problem bud.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245352]They're weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, we all know what kinds of weapons these are. Military-styled or what have you, they don't belong on the streets. Massachusetts passed an AWB a few years back and have one of the lowest gun murder rates of the nation.[/QUOTE] Connecticut also has strict assault weapon policies and look how well that turned out for them. California too - in fact California has the highest firearm homicide rate out of all the major continental states.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245352][b]They're weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, we all know what kinds of weapons these are.[/b] Military-styled or what have you, they don't belong on the streets. Massachusetts passed an AWB a few years back and have one of the lowest gun murder rates of the nation.[/QUOTE] Wrong.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39245341]Yes, in 1994 there was an assault weapons ban which consisted of officals banning guns that looked "scary". It expired in 2004. The number of mass shootings dropped from 46 in the 1990s to 23 in 2000s.[/QUOTE] That statistic is massively non-helpful, because the ban began in the middle of the 90s and ended in the middle of the 00s

Guys honestly, can we try and not be so sensational? I notice that in gun debates either side often resorts to name calling and demeaning their opponent by making them out to be less intelligent simply because they disagree. I'd like to think people can disagree without being disagreeable.

[QUOTE=OvB;39245335]Well I wasn't old enough then to purchase a weapon anyway so it didn't effect me personally. But I know a lot of manufacturers exploited loopholes so the ban was essentially worthless anyway. Just pissed off law-abiding gun owners. Didn't save lives.[/QUOTE] To be completely and utterly fair, the crime rate did not get worse, in fact (this is due to prior trend, I think?) it was getting much better.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245352]They're weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, [B]we all know what kinds of weapons these are.[/B] Military-styled or what have you, they don't belong on the streets. Massachusetts passed an AWB a few years back and have one of the lowest gun murder rates of the nation.[/QUOTE] I really don't think you do.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245352]They're weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, we all know what kinds of weapons these are. Military-styled or what have you, they don't belong on the streets. Massachusetts passed an AWB a few years back and have one of the lowest gun murder rates of the nation.[/QUOTE] I'm going to quote this again because of how blatantly wrong you are. "assault weapons" are entirely cosmetic. If a rifle is black and has a pistol grip, it is considered an assault weapon. Those features are [b]cosmetic[/b] and don't enhance the killing power in any way shape or form. AWB bills are feel good bills that make uniformed people like you feel safe when in actuality you are in just as much danger as you were before the bill passed.

I don't see why you americans feel that your government could turn tyrannical. I think it's to do with the population having little to no input, while here in the UK the PM is on bloody talk shows.

[QUOTE=OvB;39245370]Wrong.[/QUOTE] Not saying thats the official definition, that's what I understand them to be. Weapons with the express purpose of killing human beings, they generally have no alternative purpose besides that

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39245341]Yes, in 1994 there was an assault weapons ban which consisted of officals banning guns that looked "scary". It expired in 2004. The number of mass shootings dropped from 46 in the 1990s to 23 in 2000s.[/QUOTE] Crime rate was dropping anyway, the AWB didn't do anything to make it worse, or make it better, it seems.

[QUOTE=Scot;39245393]I don't see why you americans feel that your government could turn tyrannical. I think it's to do with the population having little to no input, while here in the UK the PM is on bloody talk shows.[/QUOTE] They can't. We have guns.

[QUOTE=Apache249;39245403]They can't. We have guns.[/QUOTE] Oh god I can't tell if you're being serious any more.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245394]Not saying thats the official definition, that's what I understand them to be. Weapons with the express purpose of killing human beings, they generally have no alternative purpose besides that[/QUOTE] Actually the only firearm that has a definition remotely close to that is handguns, and even lots of those have sporting and hunting intentions.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245394]Not saying thats the official definition, that's what I understand them to be. Weapons with the express purpose of killing human beings, they generally have no alternative purpose besides that[/QUOTE] Your understanding is entirely wrong and you should fix that by going to this link please [url]http://www.assaultweapon.info/[/url] If you would like to debate with us, please know what you're talking about before hand.

[QUOTE=Scot;39245358]Which is why it's such a terrible notion.[/QUOTE] In what capacity? The government serves the people. If it doesn't serve the people, it is tyranny. I'm not a fan of having no say in my government.

[QUOTE=Scot;39245393]I don't see why you americans feel that your government could turn tyrannical.[/QUOTE] Perhaps you've forgotten everything that happened before the revolutionary war? The constitution was written for a reason.