• #11
    I would hope that the stupid asses could first correctly distinquish what the F&&& an assault weapon is, or is that asking too much?
  • #70
    @marine1 The technical, legal definition of an assault weapon is outdated and ignores the practical application as it pertains to warfighters. If a warfighter is provided a weapon with three round burst, but trained not to use that feature-ammunition waste and inaccurate-is not the civilian version of that weapon in the same class?
  • #72
    @PauldenZangpo So why make a distinction at all? Roll back the NFA 1934 and lets start this ball game over again with some rules that actually make some sense.
  • #108
    @PauldenZangpo assault weapon is a false concept of a weapon anyway. The biggest advantage of the AR class of rifle is weight. Full auto has limited value in any rifle. The reason that they are controlled so heavily is because of their indiscriminate application. It's difficult to use an automatic weapon against " the bad guy" without putting innocent bystanders at risk. A semi auto can. That distinction is significant. I have used a bolt action rifle to great effect as a " war fighter"
  • #133
    @GvtMule when i was in vietnam i only ever used a bolt action carbine. about a week after they handed me an 'm-16' i threw it into the mekong river.
  • #107
    @Goose Yep, the whole background check thing is about creating a way to register people. DON'T TRUST any politician who says they want to close loopholes. That is political gun-ban talk for banning guns, or registering people through background check information. The only loophole they are interested in is getting rid of the private ownership of weapons.
  • #30
    Gun Control restrictions are un-Constitutional, no ifs ans or buts about it. "the right of the PEOPLE shall NOT be infringed". No other Amendment declaring natural rights is as strongly worded as that.
  • #34
    Topix, the wording of the question is a bit flawed. It would be better read as "Can Politicians Ban Certain Weapons?"

    The "government" is just an idea, a framework, and it is the people that fill the positions in the government that can be bad or good.

    Bad politicians who have a powertrip and want to consolidate more power under their command, or for those they serve, want to take away civil rights such as free speech, gun rights, privacy rights, etc.

    THEY are the ones wanting to ban weapons, NOT the government itself. They just happen to be working in a government position of authority is all. They are not the government itself, merely custodians of it.

    Americans support our Constitution and government, it might not be perfect but it's still the best in the World at the moment, especially since it contains the Bill of Rights, which protects all American's natural rights.

    It's just the bad apples, certain politicians who have become corrupted or sought office because they were corrupt to being with, that are not supported by many. They have broken their oath to defend and protect the Constitution.
  • #101
    So do you agree with the actions of the national firearms act of 1934????

    Is it unconstitutional to regulate all of the firearms and accessories contained within????
  • #105
    @cnw95 The NFA of 34 was actually ruled to be unconstitutional and illegal, and was voided in the 60s and replaced with new laws which were similar. Yes the original and the new NFA laws are illegal and have been recently ruled to be so in Tenn. Perhaps they will be repealed soon.
  • #119
    @cnw95 I think that it is.

    The NFA 1934 was passed as a result of the lawlessness which arose out of the Depression and Prohibition.

    Both of those factors went away, but of course the NFA 1934 remained. The 2nd Am. at its core protects the right of citizens to possess military weaponry. By prohibiting citizens from possessing such, the People's ability to maintain any kind of power parity with the military went away.

    And remember, the purpose of the 2nd isn't SOLELY to enable the People to resist the government; it is to enable the People to AID the government, in time of need.
  • #135

    Indirectly, your speaking about the 1939 case of U.S. v Miller in which the supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment protected a citizens right to own firearms that were ordinary militia weapons.(in this case a sawed-off shotgun)

    But the court FAILED to make a determination as to whether or not a sawed-off shotgun constituted ordinary militia equipment.

    Further,the court sent the case back to the lower court for further review.

    This case NEVER made a decision as to whether or not a sawed-off shotgun was LEGAL to possess or not.

    This was a strange case that still today garners debate.

    Why would the court take the case without FIRST determining whether or not the weapon in question was used in the military???

    Also, the courts never ruled the act unconstitutional.

    The courts finding:The National Firearms Act — as applied to transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long, without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it — was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States and did not violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
  • R Load more replies

  • #27
    A law abiding citizen owning a so called "assault weapon" is not a problem. I would ask why the government is so interested in tipping the field in their favor?
  • #94
    Well that's easy...simply to tip the field in their favor. It isn't for safety. It isn't because they want to do the protecting. Look at gun free zones...make it illegal for citizens to carry a weapon to defend themselves but then, the police aren't there to do the defending. Look at Chicago. No, it isn't for safety. It doesn't even have anything to do with addressing crime. It's for THEIR safety. And it's to make it easier to control people when they decide they've got something to do. I don't care what they SAY. Actions tell the truth.
  • #106
    @Sonny Governments can do many things. They could reinstate slavery for instance. Doesn't make it right. There are too many gun laws already, and many people are working on getting them repealed. Good riddance. Prohibition didn't work, the war on drugs didn't work, alien and sedition acts didn't work, and gun control doesn't work. They are all pipedreams and immoral policies.
  • #111
    @Sonny yes they can some.. as an artillery and explosives. that's about it. maybe you should research the law little bit Sonny.. in fact in many states including the one in which I live I could go out and buy a fully automatic machine gun.... but that's because I can already pass the background checks necessary... and that are already in place and have been for many years.. so you see your idiot president is disingenuous when he tries to tell you low information people about the need for background checks. we know he's lying, that's just what he does best.... well that and pull the wool over the eyes of fools
  • #114
    @ZombieMedic Actually the gov can not reinstate slavery. And there are far too many guns in America. Additional laws are needed.
  • #115
    @bsking Goid for you & your ability to pass a background check. But this is not really about you, bs.
  • R Load more replies

  • #97
    "Assault weapons" in the hands of Governments have killed millions more people than private citizen gangbangers ever have.

    Seems to me that the Governments are the ones that need to have their weapons controlled, not the citizens.
  • #127
    @Politic-n This is exactly the point.

    No amount of mass murderers will cause the downfall of this country.

    But the loss of freedoms trying to prevent every single mass murderer from obtaining weapons, can.
  • #15
    You can ban anything by the passage of a law, and the courts can overturn the law with a Supreme Court Decision. If you want a civil war again, try to ban what has been called assault weapons. Any weapon is an assault weapon unless its being used for suicide, because if you point it at another you are assaulting them with the weapon.
  • #35
    Any gun, no matter it's type, make or model can be an assault weapon in the wrong hands. Therefore restricting any gun (automatic weapons excluded) goes against the Second Ammendment.
  • #61
    The descriptor 'dangerous and unusual' seems arbitrary at best.
    What constitutes 'assault weapon'?
    A plastic stock fitted to an otherwise perfectly acceptable firearm?
    The argument is specious and a smoke screen for the real agenda of at first weakening and then removing the 2nd Amendment, and along with it your right of self defense and preservation.
  • #65
    The courts love to contrive magic language such as this to help them craft policy. You are completely correct in this regard.. "Dangerous and unusual"... "common use", etc., very problematic and vague in meaning and application.
  • #47
    Once more ASSAULT WEAPONS, REAL ASSAULT WEAPONS, ARE CLASS III FIREARMS, GOVERNED BY THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT. THEY ARE IN FACT CLASSIFIED AS MACHINE GUNS. They must be registered, a $200. tax must be paid on each one to the BATFE, it's potential owners must only buy them from an equally highly regulated dealer; the potential buyer must undergo fingerprinting and an exhaustive background check; the owner must SURRENDER ALL 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS and permit the BATFE to conduct unannounced searches at any time of the day or night 24/7/365; must notify BATFE and local authorities any time the weapon is removed from its storage site AHEAD OF TIME, with MONTHS in advance to obtain permission from the BATFE, etc. Can the government "ban" semi-automatic military look-alikes that the media love to call assault weapons? NO. It can try, but WE THE PEOPLE won't let it happen.
  • R Load more comments...