"Assualt" weapons

Do you believe they should keep the ban on "Assualt" weapons?

 

No. Opposed.

 

As do i. I believe the only reason they want to ban weapons like the AR-15 or SKS is because they "look scary". I see no viable reason to ban them.

 

First they take your guns. Then they take your voice.

It's all downhill from there.

 

As a liberal, a hunter, and an owner of an SKS I am conflicted. I trust myself with a gun like that. I don't know if I trust everyone. They are cheap, reliable, and very powerful. I say stricter enforcement of our current laws.

 

TFM,

I have to ask you to back up. Because your post seems to be a classic liberal flaw, IMO. You're saying, I trust myself, but everyone else can't be as smart as I and must be controlled by the government. Therefore, I am willing to forego my freedom to protect myself and others from the stupid people.

 

I used to be in favor of banning assault weapons but the discussion in the thread I started on Gun Rights has convinced me otherwise. So long as there is a decent licensing program and decent enforcement of the laws yeah...I can get behind people wanting to keep their large caliber arms.

 

No problem Here is the deal. I was not always liberal. I grew up hunting and fishing. From 12 years old on I had guns. I certainly have seen what bullets can do on impact, as a buck and duck or two can testify. I realize the dangers of guns, and the consequences of pulling a trigger. Now, would I defend my home? Certainly. I also do not have a problem waiting two weeks for a new gun for the government to ensure that I can legally own one. Now, if the current laws were followed properly, then the VT shooter would not have gotten his hands on a gun. Enforce the laws we have, no additional ones.

 

You got it. There is a reason that it's the 2nd ammend. Becuase it is vital to ensuring the rights provided in the 1st.

Imagine someone saying to you..."Bloggers incited a mob to voilence against a Mosque. We have tracked this and this is not an isolated incident. Therefore, freedom of speech on the internet is a danger to the public at large and it will be restricted."

 

OK, that makes sense. You and I seem to be on the same page in that a more critical and restrictive eye should be directed at owners, not weapons.

 

Absolutely. This bleeding heart knows that guns don't pull their own triggers.

 

Yes he would have. It ay have been a bit harder and illegaly, but he would have gotten ahold of a gun reguardless.

 

People who are crazy enough will find a way. Insanity is the mother of innovation. Well, step-mom, anyway.

 

And as many have pointed out. If that brave teacher had been allowed to carry, the body count may have been as low as 2, including crazy boy.

 

You are correct. I should have stated he would not have been able to legally acquire a weapon.