pDo you support a federal assault weapons ban?

Next>

Results

70 %

No, I don't

28 %

Yes, I do

2 %

I'm not sure

@Jan '13 c 918 comments V 1,565 votes

Detailed Results Next Debate Vote Now

Activity Stmts Popular

1565 Votes

u

48 min
Rabardan voted

v No, I don't
u

2 hr

trijicon

v No, I don't

I don't support Magazine size limits or background checks on every purchase. After all, they are not really just "checks" . It is a de facto Registry that the Architects of our Constitution never wanted there to be in the first place. Call me old fashioned but I don't see how your new laws will stop people from committing atrocities.

Post
u

u

3 hr
robbob280 endorsed Kellso

v Yes, I do
u

3 hr
krb69 voted

v No, I don't
4 hr

N0rthman

v No, I don't

Is the Pope budist?

Post
u

7 hr
Slaughter1989 endorsed Ashstop

v No, I don't
u

8 hr
Richard22 voted

v Yes, I do
u

8 hr
DesignerLM voted

v No, I don't
u

9 hr
Tpaw32 endorsed pammylove

v Yes, I do
9 hr

griffco

v Yes, I do

I support a Assault weapon ban because NO person needs a assault weapon to kill a deer, rabbit, bird or anything else. Assault weapons are only useful to kill humans. What practical sane person would use a assault weapon to kill for food?...What i have a problem with is the Federal or State Law telling me i CAN NOT POSSESS ONE. Give time to the Feds and we will eventually see them Amend the 2 nd Amendment. That is what i see happening. They know that they can not erase the amendment, but they can amend it and install a ban on assault weapons.

Post
u

10 hr
kafka voted

v No, I don't
10 hr
DonMyrick endorsed Ashstop

v No, I don't
u

14 hr
g89dsw voted

v Yes, I do
u

15 hr
shareen12 endorsed ir0nw0lfe

v No, I don't
16 hr
vickomls voted

v Yes, I do
u

17 hr

forrest

v No, I don't

Absolutely not. Our 2nd Amendment rights are clear and I do not support any attempt to restrict the rights of legal gun owners. If you don't like guns, them move to the People's Republik of Massachusetts or Connecticut.

Post
17 hr
cpt_chernobyl voted

v No, I don't
u

18 hr
Just_Lisa voted

v No, I don't
Sun
doodadson endorsed ir0nw0lfe

v No, I don't
Sun
CoreyBairre voted

v Yes, I do
Sun
sweetromance endorsed ir0nw0lfe

v No, I don't
u

Sun

pboucher

v Yes, I do

There is NO NEED, JUSTIFICATION NOR REASON for an assualt weapon. We live in a stable representative democracy. Assualt weapons introduces a huge level of instability Aerica doesn't need!

r2 replies

Post
u

Sun
tinto voted

v Yes, I do
u

Sun
Politixuser11 endorsed DARSB

v Yes, I do
u

Sun
aledar voted

v No, I don't
Sun
Jake92 voted

v No, I don't
Sun
Mrkwa voted

v No, I don't
u

Sun
hitter voted

v Yes, I do
Sat
doggie_luv voted

v Yes, I do
Sat

FireFox

v No, I don't

The amendment that gives us the right to bear arms says and am going to paraphras a little. It says it right in there. "the right of the people" "shall not be infringed". Right there. That says to me it's a right that can not be taken away from the people. And they can not make a law(s) that even remotely restricts anyone from having a fire arm. It's black and white. Everyone has the right to protect there self and by taking guns away, there taking away your rights to protect yourself and your family. You can not wait on the police for help. It takes a split second and your not there, well your body is but your not...As you can see if you give a polatichane an inch he'...

B1

Post
Sat
DamnGunslinger voted

v No, I don't
Sat
PaulJ voted

v Yes, I do
May 18
gonzoguy1987 endorsed mwr

v No, I don't
u

May 18

Granite4Red

v No, I don't

The PRIMARY reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizenry against enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC (as in a corrupt Government)! I could make a better argument, constitutionally for allowing assault weapons but NOT hand guns or rifles. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about Hunting or even King of your Castle doctrines, it is about protecting us (as Americans) against enemies abroad and Corrupt Government domestically

Post
u

May 18
dzfgb endorsed Ashstop

v No, I don't
May 18

mikev9359

v No, I don't

Personally, I would never own what politicians tagged as an 'assault' weapon. I don't think I need one. But if that should ever change, I would like to know that I can legally buy one. Lord knows I can get one very easily in NY and NJ where they are illegal. So why not make them legal where they are not and keep them legal where they are currently?

Post
May 18
archetype67 voted

v Yes, I do
May 18
new_life voted

v No, I don't
u

May 18
chasinr33 voted

v No, I don't
May 18
sillybilly1b voted

v No, I don't
May 17
Zennbenn endorsed DARSB

v Yes, I do
May 17
solodad voted

v Yes, I do
May 17
shihtzuman endorsed DARSB

v Yes, I do
May 17
Stinger2 voted

v Yes, I do
May 17
MeandMyselftoo voted

v No, I don't
May 17
lapazjim voted

v No, I don't
u

May 17
metre voted

v Yes, I do
May 16
luna11 endorsed DARSB

v Yes, I do
u

May 16
truckguy endorsed marine1

v No, I don't
u

May 16
Maestro333 endorsed ir0nw0lfe

v No, I don't

u

2 hr

trijicon

v No, I don't

I don't support Magazine size limits or background checks on every purchase. After all, they are not really just "checks" . It is a de facto Registry that the Architects of our Constitution never wanted there to be in the first place. Call me old fashioned but I don't see how your new laws will stop people from committing atrocities.

Post
4 hr

N0rthman

v No, I don't

Is the Pope budist?

Post
9 hr

griffco

v Yes, I do

I support a Assault weapon ban because NO person needs a assault weapon to kill a deer, rabbit, bird or anything else. Assault weapons are only useful to kill humans. What practical sane person would use a assault weapon to kill for food?...What i have a problem with is the Federal or State Law telling me i CAN NOT POSSESS ONE. Give time to the Feds and we will eventually see them Amend the 2 nd Amendment. That is what i see happening. They know that they can not erase the amendment, but they can amend it and install a ban on assault weapons.

Post
u

17 hr

forrest

v No, I don't

Absolutely not. Our 2nd Amendment rights are clear and I do not support any attempt to restrict the rights of legal gun owners. If you don't like guns, them move to the People's Republik of Massachusetts or Connecticut.

Post
u

Sun

pboucher

v Yes, I do

There is NO NEED, JUSTIFICATION NOR REASON for an assualt weapon. We live in a stable representative democracy. Assualt weapons introduces a huge level of instability Aerica doesn't need!

r2 replies

Post
17 hr

cpt_chernobyl

Yes there is justification. To protect ourselves from a tyrannical government

Post @cpt_chernobyl
u

6 hr

pboucher

@cpt_chernobyl With all due respect IMHO our government cannot become a tyrannical government overnite. There are more than enough checks and balances interwoven in the federal and state constitution(s) to prevent this from happening. These are there not only to prevent too much electoral power congregating but also to stop any faction of our government from usurping power. Maybe the government doesn't always listen to the person but the will of the people, on which this nation was founded, cannot and will not be denied. However I agree that in less stable countries people might want to be armed to prevent this but in our country this time has, thankfully, passed. ...

Post @pboucher
Sat

FireFox

v No, I don't

The amendment that gives us the right to bear arms says and am going to paraphras a little. It says it right in there. "the right of the people" "shall not be infringed". Right there. That says to me it's a right that can not be taken away from the people. And they can not make a law(s) that even remotely restricts anyone from having a fire arm. It's black and white. Everyone has the right to protect there self and by taking guns away, there taking away your rights to protect yourself and your family. You can not wait on the police for help. It takes a split second and your not there, well your body is but your not...As you can see if you give a polatichane an inch he'...

B1

Post
u

May 18

Granite4Red

v No, I don't

The PRIMARY reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizenry against enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC (as in a corrupt Government)! I could make a better argument, constitutionally for allowing assault weapons but NOT hand guns or rifles. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about Hunting or even King of your Castle doctrines, it is about protecting us (as Americans) against enemies abroad and Corrupt Government domestically

Post
May 18

mikev9359

v No, I don't

Personally, I would never own what politicians tagged as an 'assault' weapon. I don't think I need one. But if that should ever change, I would like to know that I can legally buy one. Lord knows I can get one very easily in NY and NJ where they are illegal. So why not make them legal where they are not and keep them legal where they are currently?

Post
u

May 15

The_Bald_Guy

v No, I don't

They arent "assault weapons,", they are merely modern semi autos. Most of what they wish to ban function to make operating the firearm safer.

Post
May 14

MrGee

v No, I don't

I was thinking that it was against the law to kill and rob people already ???? So I guess making new laws will help the old laws ?? Maybe something does not make since here not real sure anymore. So you want to make more laws on gun and mag bans, I thank with the 2500 laws on the books for guns already, you should have enough to stop the IDIOTS out there doing the wrong things and leave the law abiding people the f-_k alone!!!!!! We The People say NO MORE!!!!!

Post
May 14

littlewolf8469

v No, I don't

I don't agree with any infringment on the second amendment at all

r3 replies

Post
u

May 14

factologest

You don't have to. The courts already have. All constitutional rights have limits and it's the court's job to decide where that limit is. Like a "background check" prior to purchase of a gun is a limit/infringment placed on the 2nd and has been upheld by the court as constitutional.

Post @factologest
u

May 18

Granite4Red

@factologest: The Supreme Court has upheld Background Checks? Just for my information, what case was that and who was on the Supreme Court at that time

Post @Granite4Red
u

May 18

factologest

@Granite4Red My statement is incorrect. Thanks for bringing it up. As far as I know, a case concerningt Background Checks per se, has not appeared before the SC. What I should have written was a reference to what Judge Scalia wrote in DC v Heller about keeping guns from certain individuals as the checks are designed to do. From DC v Heller " Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courtâs opinion should not be taken to cast d...

Post @factologest
u

May 13

Bcarter

v No, I don't

"Assault weapons" as far as this ban goes, are not assault weapons at all. This is a misnomer used by liberals to make the guns involved seem more deadly. The guns which are being referred to as assault weapons are semi automatic and are not able to be fired in a full automatic fashion, thus, no different than any other semi automatic rifle or handgun.

Post
May 12

nay51756

v No, I don't

Just read the 2nd and understand it.

Post
May 12

BobbyG

v Yes, I do

With respect to "Second Amendment Remedies," see http://www.bgladd.com/Treason.jpg See also http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2012/12/force-majeure.html

Post
u

May 12

SESCOMM

v No, I don't

This gives too much power in classifying weapons in the future. There are many deadly weapons; banning a few won't solve anything and it violates one's rights.

Post
May 10

marysrus13

v Yes, I do

Assault weapons are meant to wage War. If they are on the streets, then I want Department of Defense Members on every street where they are stored to defend me against those who might use them. Weapons are meant for two purposes offensive or defensive use. If you want war - you equip for it. If you want to harvest deer or other game - use something that's not Human lethal to accomplish it. Seems our fore-bearers did just swell without gunpowder-fueled weaponry.

r2 replies

Post
u

May 13

Bcarter

Sorry to say, but every gun is "human lethal" as you stated it. Our ore fathers all had gunpowder-fueled weaponry, and it was state of the art for their time.

B1

Post @Bcarter
u

May 15

The_Bald_Guy

What do you think they used? Sling shots? And if it isnt (as you say) "human lethal," it isnt "deer lethal." This is especially true considering deer are usually shot at range, and criminal shootings are usually within contact distance.

Post @The_Bald_Guy
May 9

Prime_Meridian

v No, I don't

No. First of all, it's a misnomer. The REAL assault weapons (Class III Firearms) are already heavily regulated in all aspects. Second, VERY FEW CRIMES are committed with military look alikes that rabble rousers like to call 'assault weapons'. This was all covered in the USDoJ Study "Impacts of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994", National Institute of Justice, Publication No. NCJ173045 (see it at http://assaultweaponsbanof2013.blogspot.com) Even the overwhelming majority of Police Officers, from patrol officers to chiefs, do not support an "assault weapons" (sic) ban. See the survey taken among 15,595 officers, by www.policeone.com (an organization of some 400,...

Post
May 8

NOObama

v No, I don't

I don't support it because I can . No other reason necessary

B1

Post
u

May 8

AchronMows

v Yes, I do

Of course I support the ban of assault weapons, especially considering they're already banned and have been for quite some time. I also strongly support everyone, on BOTH sides of the issue, to actually learn what an "assault weapon" is. HINT: it's not just a scary looking black gun.

Post
u

May 8

plainlogic

v No, I don't

Just what does Assault weapons suggest? fully automatic? or is it meant any weapon is an assault weapon since it's used in an assault during a crime? It's subjective! The progressives way of stirring the emotions to get their agenda completed. Ends justifies the means.

Post
R Load more comments...

Jan '13

DARSB

v Yes, I do

I don't believe there is a legitimate civilian use for these weapons. Their appalling lethal efficiency is a strong argument for a ban on new sales, and I'd support a debate about removing as many of them from circulation as we can. There's just no reason I can see to make mass murder as easy as possible.

B3

r38 replies

e126 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

ir0nw0lfe

v No, I don't

I can live with 10 round mags for recreational shooters of assault rifles. I can live with background checks for weapons purchased. What I don't see is how banning assault weapons becomes the answer to the problem. The first assault weapons ban had little to no effect. Why do we expect this one to be different? As with all of these knee jerk reactions to a tragedy, this course of action pretty much affects everyone but those causing the problem.

B10

r27 replies

e103 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

Ashstop

v No, I don't

It's so sad to see Obama dismantle our great country one executive order at a time.. And see people that don't care, just keep the free stuff coming and they'll accept anything! The 2nd amendment was to protect us against the government, not to assure we could hunt squirrels !!

B6

r1 reply

e94 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

marine1

v No, I don't

It is not about banning a certain type of gun. It IS about not having the competence to deal with the core issues of the problem. We have lowered the expectations of society and in doing so, destroyed the core values that built this country. SAD

B6

r4 replies

e34 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

Vance1

v No, I don't

We the people and the 2nd ammendment...Will Stand!!

B4

e26 endorsed

Post
u

Jan '13

KayKay-SoCs

v No, I don't

Banning Semi-Auto guns or clips that hold ten or more rounds will do NOTHING to deter criminals or the mentally ill from committing violent crimes! It will only penalize law-abiding gun owners and, if anything, make crime worse. Not only that, but our founding fathers fully intended for the American People to have the same guns our government has to protect ourselves from tyranny. Geuss what??? Our federal government and their miltia's (Secret Service, FBI, CIA, etc....etc.....) run around with FULL-AUTOMATICS. So, thanks Obama, but no thanks...I'll keep mine.

B3

r8 replies

e20 endorsed

Post
u

Jan '13

Kellso

v Yes, I do

Gun sport is NOT a 30+ round weapon made for killing humans. Gun sport is fireing to harvest a legal game animal or to put a round in the bullseye and follow it up with others ONE AT A TIME. NOT RIPPING OFF 20 or 30 rounds in a red hot barrel. Those arms have a place with police or service individuals to protect us. If someone wants to fire one and NOT BE A SERVICE PErSON, there should be locations at fireing ranges to 'rent and fire it' under controled situations.... To putthis in perspective, we can buy and use small fireworks BUT we can not buy and blow up dynamite or TNT or Plastic explosives now can we? We should consider these same rules for assault weapons.

B1

r4 replies

e15 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

pammylove

v Yes, I do

Plenty of other guns for personal protection. The average Joe doesn't need a military style weapon to defend himself.

B2

r3 replies

e12 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

Republican

v No, I don't

It's such a shame to see America fall and burn because that's where we are headed. Obama is by FAR the WORST president we have ever had. The second amendment is there so that we can protect our families. Why should the innocent be punished for what the bad people do? Stricter weapon laws won't stop the bad people from getting their hands on weapons. If the bad people really wanted to get their hands on weapons they easily could. Stricter laws would only put innocent people at risk of not being armed. I say get obama and all the damn democrats out of office!

B4

r2 replies

e8 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

mwr

v No, I don't

Absolutely oppose this naive approach. Once again the white house plays the crowd for the most brownie points rather than seeking a true solution.

B2

r2 replies

e7 endorsed

Post

Politix

pDo you support a federal assault weapons ban?

Results