Do you support a universal ban on military & assault "like" weapons for non mili

1. 65

   SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years ago

   Do you support a universal ban on military & assault "like" weapons for non military individuals?
   
   Do you believe that only the military needs assault "type" guns? And that "non military" personal use gun purchases should have access to bullet clips with a maximum of 10 bullets?

   replyreport
2. 40

   ChristinSposted 11 years ago

   Yes, I think those are reasonable restrictions - not bans.  We have to show ID to purchase cold medicine in our state.  That is more highly regulated than gun shows are.  Background checks for everyone is reasonable.  No one needs an assault weapon or a weapon with more than ten rounds in the clip to protect their home. If you need more than that to hunt, you need more practice .
   
   I believe licensing and competency should have to be proven, much the same as we test and train to drive vehicles which can also have deadly consequences without proper training.  No one complains when a license is yanked from a chronic drunk driving offender for example.
   
   I think we also need to address underlying issues as well - our glorification of violence in this culture combined with a chronic state of hyper paranoia and fear is leading us down a bad road.  People do not value the lives of others - things have become more important.  Everyone lives in chronic fear of the boogeyman. Kids no longer play in the street and socialize. 
   
   As with any debate, it is never black and white - there are a lot of gray areas in between that must be discussed and voted on by rational people.  Gun rights advocates need to know that reasonable rules that are enforced are not infringing on their rights.  People who want full out bans, need to understand we have the right to bear arms.  Now we need to  find that important middle ground - and it should have been done decades ago before the NRA took over the government with their unreasonable and paranoid propaganda.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well said. The ban refers to only those types of weapons not guns in general. Dee

      replyreport
3. 73

   AlexDrinkH2Oposted 11 years ago

   No.  First ANY ban on individually-owned firearms is likely unconstitutional and, in any case, an "assault" weapon is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle which looks mean!  By the way, when I served in Vietnam, I carried an M-16 which had a 20-round magazine.  To insure we weren't wasting time changing magazines if we had to engage in combat (something I never did, thank God), we taped two magazines together, each facing in the opposite direction.  So all we had to was eject the empty clip, turn it around and load the other one.  It took a few seconds.  So what would stop someone doing the same thing today if they enact a law limiting magazines to 10 rounds?  Answer:  nothing.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Would it be better to do nothing when senseless violence is increasing? How is excluding one  category of weapons taking anything away from any reasonable collector or owner?

      replyreport
   2. 93

      peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Sexyladydee, I suppose you think laws are for criminals who commit senseless violence. Guess what, Laws only impact law abiding people and do nothing to stop violent people.

      replyreport
   3. 73

      AlexDrinkH2Oposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Why should I be precluded from buying something I want just because some nutjob used the same kind of item to commit a heinous crime?  If I want a damn AR-15, that's MY business.  If I allow it to get into the wrong hands, then that's different.

      replyreport
4. 90

   peoplepower73posted 11 years ago

   Yes I do on both counts. If a person wants to fire a military weapon, they should join the military. Gun people  say they get a thrill out of firing military type weapons at targets and varmints.   They also say, they will protect themselves better in case of attacks by multiple shooters. Multiple shooters include but are not limited to mental cases and as a result of tyrant organizations.  I believe those are selfish motives and the price we pay for that is that these weapons are not only available to them but to mentally unstable people and criminals as well that can do great harm to us and our children.
   
   The more weapons that are available to law abiding honest citizens, the more weapons that are also available to those that want to do harm whether legally or illegally obtained.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for your input. Dee

      replyreport
5. 71

   Prakash Digheposted 11 years ago

   Yes, on both counts. Assault weapons are meant for use in theaters of war. They have no place in our homes or on our streets.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you very much for your input. Dee

      replyreport
6. 76

   starme77posted 11 years ago

   Nope I believe in the Constitution of the United States and our rights to bear arms

   replyreport
7. 73

   pagesvoiceposted 11 years ago

   Let me answer your question, with a question. Just like ChristinS made mention, in New York State I need to show a valid photo ID if I want to purchase Sudafed. Using that logic, then why are the gun zealots against a universal form of performing a background check on those attempting to secure a firearm? If you are fearful they will find something in your past, then chances are you shouldn't be carrying a weapon. If a person has a history of domestic violence, DWIs, arrests, mental problems, or affiliations with known fringe groups that promote an agenda of tyranny, then quite frankly, none of them should own firearms. When I applied for a permit to carry my S & W 38, it took me months before the application process was complete. Big deal. I had absolutely nothing to hide so I had nothing to worry about. Assault weapons, humongous magazines and cop killer bullets have no business in the hands of civilians. To me, that is just a common sense answer.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks. My Gma used to say sense wasn't common. We have to separate the politically motivated jargon that says this is a step towards changing the constitution. It isn't. Dee

      replyreport
8. 66

   collegedadposted 11 years ago

   No I don't. Any time a government removes civil rights from its' people it is over stepping its' bounds. Our government was formed to protect America as a whole allowing the States to govern as they see fit. It was not formed to control its' citizens. It was not formed to develop entitlement programs. It was not formed to educate our children. It was formed to protect the State's right to govern. I'm against any federal action that supersedes the rights of state government.
   
   I could sit here and quote statistics on gun violence all day long. I could also quote statistics about baseball bat violence, but we have a president who is bent on crippling America so it really doesn't matter.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      We agree to disagree. This is an open forum and ideas from both sides are welcome. Equating the banning of one type of weapon with civil rights seems like a stretch to me but you are entitled to your opinion and I/ We respect that. Dee

      replyreport
9. 71

   CR Rookwoodposted 11 years ago

   Yes on both counts.
   
   When the founding fathers included the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, very few kinds of arms were available, and we did not have a standing army. I believe the 'well regulated militia' clause referred to keeping the general populace armed so a militia could be assembled at any moment to defend the US.
   
   Now we have an established military that handles that task. We also have guns that are hundreds of times more lethal than a musket. If we keep extending 'the right to bear arms' to its logical conclusion, next we'll have citizens with nuclear weapons. If that sounds silly, during a recent 'turn in your guns' event in Grand Rapids, two rocket launchers were turned in. Even the cops were floored by that one. What else is out there?
   
   I think the proposed ban on assault weapons and extended ammo clips should be the start of a national discussion about the role violence plays in our country. We are still destroying each other and ourselves. The Civil War is (supposedly) over, but too many people didn't get the e-mail. Really, this cant continue the way it is.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Your "nuclear" comment is completely false. Arms are defined as firearms and "bear" means to carry on one's person.

      replyreport
   2. 90

      peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You can carry an RPG, Stinger Missile, Bazooka and 50 Caliber sniper rifle on your person. Do you want to take out tanks or aircraft, your choice?

      replyreport
   3. 66

      collegedadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If you take a minute and look at the 2nd amendment, it wasn't enacted to protect the United States. It was enacted so that a "free state" could defend itself against the federal government via the formation of a militia.

      replyreport
   4. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Peoplepower, rocket launchers et al are already illegal to bear...and not listed as firearms...nor were cannons during the founding...straw dog.

      replyreport
   5. 65

      SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      CR Rockwood thank you for your input and background information. It clarifies that military & assault type weapons weren't what the founding fathers were protecting. Dee

      replyreport
   6. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Already illegal to own rocket launchers, so how'd they get them. I thought bans worked? Like making drugs illegal, that worked too...??
      You mentioned email...since that and the internet weren't invented yet, does the 1St Amendment cover that??

      replyreport
   7. 71

      CR Rookwoodposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I said the current measures should be the START of a long  conversation about guns and gun violence in the U.S. Bans don't work well, but it's a start. It will take at least a generation or more for things to change.

      replyreport
   8. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Since bans don't work and only allow the right to bear arms to be infringed upon...and only for the law abiding citizen...why is a GOOD place to start?

      replyreport
10. 80

    Mitch Alanposted 11 years ago

    Sexy, Can you define "assault type" firearms? All automatic firearms such as machine guns have been banned since the 1930's for civilian ownership. A semi-automatic still needs the trigger pulled once for every round fired. And, semi-automatic firearms are not just rifles, but handguns can be semi-automatic. A large part of the ban on "assault" firearms has to do with aesthetics and not the power, range or capacity of a firearm. Adding a pistol grip can make a firearm illegal under the proposed bans.
    More importantly, is the fact that under the Constitution we have a Right to keep and bear arms that "shall not be infringed". The federal government was specifically limited in this by the 2nd Amendment. "The Right of the People" is the primary reason for the Bill of Rights and it was required for the ratification of the Constitution.
    Those that argue from the stand point of "they didn't have those type of weapons during the founding" are missing three important points.
    1. The protection was so that the average citizen would be as well armed as any agressor, whether from without or from within their own town, State or nation. And, the founders understood that technology advances and they specifically DIDN'T limit the "type" of firearms.
    2. If the founders had intended to limit firearms to muskets of the day and just "forgot" to mention it, then using that same logic we should only hold the protection of the 1st Amendment to those political writings printed on the "type" of printing presses in use at the founding. That logic (illogic) dictates that all internet speech is not protected under the 1st Amendment.
    3. When has the federal government ever done something that did not incrementally grow and become more that what it was "sold" tot the people as? Never.

    replyreport
    1. 73

       AlexDrinkH2Oposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Outstanding answer - couldn't have said it better!

       replyreport
11. 79

    Credence2posted 11 years ago

    We have to walk softly here, but even the pro gun folks recognize and seem to accept the need back in the 30's to restrict civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons (the tommy gun) for example. So, the 2nd amendment, like the 1st is not absolute. The problem of these massacres today, is that they are too frequent in occurrence, reaching a point where the status quo is no longer acceptable.
    
    If we had to experience a Titanic scale maritime disaster every other week, would you not feel under pressure to urgently address the safety all ocean lines and even the ocean itself? Something needs to be banned!
    
    I am not so much hung up on models, there should be a limit on the magazine capacity, close loopholes where guns are sold without background checks and registration, etc.

    replyreport
    1. 65

       SEXYLADYDEEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Thank you for your constructive input. Dee

       replyreport
12. 72

    LauraD093posted 11 years ago

    I love this particular forum thank-you SEXYLADYDEE because it shows Americans just what the true problem is. Whether pro or anti gun legislature each side is going to continue to interrupt the 1st and 2nd amendments to support their arguments. They all have merit and logic but never show a middle-ground or unified position to help decrease the ability for incidents like Sandy Creek-Columbine or the next mass killing around the corner. The gun debate has been going on for years.. My personal theology aside President Obama taking action and proposing the legislation could give a platform outside of the diatribes and controversy that swirls endlessly around this issue. Could we not start with an agreement that something must be changed? What about focusing our attention more on our mental institutions and how they operate completely controlled by either insurance coverage or governmental funding?Everyone seems more focused on the weapons not the parties pulling the triggers.

    replyreport
13. 76

    daskittlez69posted 11 years ago

    I do believe there need to be restrictions on assault rifles.  I know a lot of people who disagree with me, but I am a deer and turkey hunter, and I have never needed a automatic rifle to kill a deer or a turkey.  I do think some of the laws are a little goofy though.  I understand that some of the recent school shootings had guns that were bought through stores that followed the laws.  But for most criminals, they do not purchase weapons at the local store.  There needs to be tighter sentencing for these idiots that are out there breaking the law.  We should go back to a time tested theory and just hang them in the closest tree to the local courthouse.  I don't see a point in spending tax payers money to keep these people locked up.

    replyreport
    1. 66

       collegedadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       daskittlez69, I dare say that many of the same people who are pushing gun legislation are the same people who push to eliminate the death penalty.

       replyreport
    2. 80

       Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Daskittlez69, Don't confuse "need" with "right"...That is where the liberals try to confuse the issue. Also, "assault weapon" under their proposal would include your rifles, if not now, then soon.

       replyreport
14. 0

    redwhiskeypeteposted 11 years ago

    Most Americans have no idea what the definition of an assault type gun is and many confuse fully automatic with semi-automatic. Being a veteran I wouldn't mind shooting a so called assault rifle at the range in my spare time.
    Here is what I want answers on. Why are some of the most strict gun law locations have the most gun murders such as Chicago and why didn't we have more gun violence when anyone could get a gun through the mail with no background check? The question is why we have more mass murders and not the type of gun being used. Say assualt type guns are done away with. Is that going to stop these mass killings? Of course not.
    I found this defination of an assault type weapon on a few web sites. "The term, assault weapon, when used in the context of assault weapon laws refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic"
    Cosmetic features is the key. Actually any rifle and pistol that has a magazine is considered semi-automatic" just like assault "type weapons.

    replyreport
    1. 90

       peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       You know it's like porn.  It's hard to define, but you know it when you see it. Especially when it is being fired!

       replyreport
    2. 80

       Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       When you see it? Shouldn't it be based on functionality, not appearance?

       replyreport
    3. 0

       redwhiskeypeteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       reuters has a news story out today talking about how people support extended round magazines and automatic weapons. Well automatic weapons have been outlawed since 1934

       replyreport
15. 0

    Old Empresarioposted 11 years ago

    I would genuinely feel sorry for people who invested thousands of dollars on these weapons only to see them confiscated. There should be compsensation for those who lose their expensive weapons as a result. It's also a shame that a few whackos in the news have to ruin it for all of the millions of responsible gun owners out there.

    replyreport
    1. 90

       peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       How many times do we have to say this.  Your weapons are not going to be confiscated.  They are just not going to make any new military style weapons available to the public.  The law has to be passed by both the senate and the house.

       replyreport
    2. 80

       Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       peoplepower, Why should semi-automatic rifles that only shoot one round per pull of the trigger be banned? What of semi-automatic pistols? When has the federal government ever stopped at "stage one" and not expanded it's programs, scope and size?

       replyreport
    3. 90

       peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Mitch Alan: Look at this video on conversion of AR15: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBP2xFsEoso
       Then you tell me, why they should be banned.

       replyreport
    4. 80

       Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Peoplepower, why should semiautomatic rifles be banned simply because there are "adapters"? Make the adapters illegal if your State wants to ban them. Should we make it illegal to purchased gasoline & vaseline or just make it illegal to make napa

       replyreport
    5. 0

       Old Empresarioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       peoplepower73, Believe it or not, I don't actually own any of these weapons. I'm just speaking objectively for others. I was just responding to the question asked by the young lady above.

       replyreport
16. 48

    Wilbart26posted 11 years ago

    Actually... No! Not at all.... because even if they ban guns and assault rifles... Criminals and syndicates can still have their own weapons in their own way.... It will be unfair to those people who will not have their defense against those type of people, because of the gun ban. Gun ban is nothing, because lots can have their own illegally. A defenseless home is equal to a new case that will be solved by the police officers. Probably much more brutal than we could even imagine.

    replyreport
17. 60

    bman3725posted 11 years ago

    No I do not. Gun violence isn't actually as bad as our media and others make it out to be. Furthermore the majority of gun crimes are created by handguns and not assault weapons. This is also a form of checks and balances our founding fathers came up with to help protect our people from tyranny. Also alcohol related deaths are staggering from either alcohol itself or accidents in vehicles. Why don't we just ban beer pongs? will this change people from drinking and driving so much? probably not, the very same can and will happen on any firearms ban. Once they are outlawed only outlaws will have them. That's one of the main things that stop criminals from marching right through your front door now, the possibility you may have a firearm. IF our government starts to ban any weapon many others will follow behind it. George Washington once said "If a government doesn't trust it's people with weapons then the people shouldn't trust their government." And i have found out in my 40 years of life there isn't such a thing as an honest politician.

    replyreport
18. 69

    Admiral Murrahposted 11 years ago

    My response is "NO" to the only the military needing assault type guns, and yes that non gun purchasers should have access to bullet clips (magazines) with more than 10 bullets. There is no reason why the public should be limited on the types of guns we have access to. Such restrictions only came about starting in the late 1930's. The government had over reached its given authority when it made the laws at that time.
    
    It strikes me as nonsensical how in Iraq, families are allowed semi-automatic weapons for home protection, yet, steps are taken here to keep us from doing so. Limiting the magazine to 10 bullets assumes that people are expert shots and that there is only one threat at a time. Those are seriously wrong assumptions. It makes as much sense as limiting the channels you have access to on television or limiting the radio stations you have access to. If the public wants larger magazines, they should be able to buy them. Those that want smaller ones should be able to buy them and those that want larger ones be able to buy them. Artificially restricting access to products is meddling by the outside authorities.

    replyreport