Do you feel assault weapons should be banned?

Question

How will taking away assault weapons prevent or even impact any crime, when crime is committed with illegal/stolen weapons?

When you disarm the public, you make it much easier for the criminals to gain the upper hand. Are you willing to throw away your own rights to protection?

Most people cannot even define an assault weapon. It is no different in function from normal hunting rifles, only looks.

Weapons are an essential to personal defense. Had public shoppers at that Wyoming mall been armed, the death count might have just been lower. Politicians seek to ignore such facts.

I urge all of those who are not willing to hand away their personal rights of the Constitution of the United States to please sign the petition against the assault weapons ban. It is a small amount of time that you can give to say that you stood up for your rights as an American. Do not let politicians walk on you any longer.

The petition can be found here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/40989834

The correct petition link is listed below, sorry about the inital error.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348

Answer 1

Not only NO, but HELL NO!

'Assault Weapon' is a phony, scare-tactic oxymoron term cooked up by the bleeding-heart libertard media to aggravate the fear and revulsion of the 'sheep' masses! It is NEVER used in the vocabulary of anyone with any working knowledge of firearms and their proper usage, other than in complete derision.

"CRIME CONTROL, NOT GUN CONTROL!"

"REGISTER CRIMINALS, NOT FIREARMS!"

What part of "Shall NOT be INFRINGED" don't these bleeding-heart libertards NOT UNDERSTAND? ANY law-abiding Citizen should be able to go armed as he damn-well PLEASES, even if he or she wants to walk around with a machine gun slung over their shoulder. . . . .

That's what I'm SURE our founding forefathers intended, no matter WHAT the bleeding-heart liberal Demacrack socio-crats in D.C. are trying to perpetrate. . . . . . . .

The Second Amendment was meant to assure ALL Americans the way to defend and guarantee the continuance of ALL our other freedoms. . . . . . .
And this is what Pelosi, Clitnon, Schumer, Kennedy & Co. are SCARED SHITELESS OF! ! ! !

"An Armed Man is a CITIZEN, an Unarmed Man is a SLAVE!"

Answer 2

One thing is for sure. You don't see most crimes being committed by someone with a weapon that meets the definition of an assault weapon.

I know a few people who have AR-15's with some of those "undesireable features" that would classify them as an assault weapon according to the liberal media, such as a bayonet lug, collapsable stock.. etc.

When was the last time you heard about some thug carrying an AR or a rifle in to rob a store? I'm not saying it hasn't happened or won't happen. But an "assault weapon" certainly hasn't or won't be used in the vast majority of crimes!

It just so happens that when an "assault weapon" is used it garners much more media attention as evidenced in the recent mall shooting.

However most unwitting people inherently assume that this must be the weapon that criminals use most, just because the media says so.

Its sad to say but most people in this country have become sheep. They don't think for themselves and are eventually led to their own demise by those they follow. It would be so nice if more people would wake up and simply think for themselves.

Answer 3

Until the Clinton administration, assault rifles were generally considered to be those military-style rifles capable of firing an intermediate-sized cartridge in a fully automatic mode, and as such they weren't generally available in the US ever. As much as I agree with your position (NRA Life Member), I'm even more concerned about people changing the law, or even the constitution (and this dovetails in, obviously) by changing the meaning of the words in the law.
I think it's important, for instance, to remember and to drive home to the ignorant that the Clinton "assault weapons ban" did not in any way affect or even mention assault weapons. It used a term for one thing to define something entirely different, and that is a more dangerous precedent than anything they might have done in terms of the firearms themselves.

Answer 4

Define 'assault weapons'. In some proposed cases a shotgun with a larger than 5 shot capacity would be a banned 'assault weapon'. there goes 6 shot model 12 shotguns. Australia had a lot of standard pump shotguns taken because the definition of 'sporting shotgun' was basic double barrel- others were assault shotguns. Self-loading shotguns - browning auto5, Remington 100, etc were class as assault weapons Cincinnati, Ohio and had to be out of city. Ruger 10-22 with detachable magazine classed as assault rifle/assault weapon and banned- Los Angeles grabbing them. Some politicians use the term and say only machine guns and assault weapons affected- then you find that machine gun is Glenfield .22 self loader with a 11 round tube magazine or Ruger 10-22 with a detachable magazine or a shotgun with more than 3 rounds (Federal wildfowl hunting limit) capacity. Troublemakers in press repeat same lies. bi

Answer 5

Assault Weapons are already banned (of course there are exceptions, some people do manage to go through the process of paperwork, background checks, and home visits by the ATF to own full auto weapons). But, by definition, assault weapons have been banned since 1934 (exceptions above noted).

The Clinton assault weapon ban of 1994, which is what this legislation is trying to re-instate, banned no assault weapons (nor did it lower any rates of crime). It banned weapons that functionally are no different than their sporting conterparts, but LOOKED menacing to the general public. It was (and still is) nothing more than feel good legislation aimed at the Liberal base to get Democrats elected to office at the expense of individual rights of the citizens of the United States.

No manner of assault weapon legislation would have prevented the mall attack if for no other reason that their was NO assault weapon used in the crime!! This of course is contrary to almost every media report I've seen on this story, since every time I've seen the story, they refer to the weapon as an AK-47. The rifle used was actually an outdated, poorly made and designed, semi-automatic Russian SKS which is not rapid fire or even high powered by anyone's definition. This rifle would not even be powerful enough to be considered legal to hunt deer with in most states.

Gun control legislation of ANY kind should be opposed vehemently whenever it rears it's ugly head. Gun control ultimately equals people control (by the governement) in the end.

Answer 6

Not to give you too much trouble, but "assault weapons" are a ficticious type of gun made up by various media groups. There are selective fire firearms, automatic firearms, and semi-automatic firearms. There is no such thing as an "assault rifle" or anything on that order; it is just a sensationalist term used to conjure up hatred for a particular firearm. That is the extact reason that as you say "Most people cannot even define an assault weapon. It is no different in function from normal hunting rifles, only looks."

But to answer your question, no firearm should ever be banned, regardless of its caliber, fire rate, color, country of origin, or however scary/cool it may look. The reason is that responsible gun owners will never use their gun in a crime and criminals will always get guns regardless of whatever laws are in place. Supposing for one second here that it were possible to destroy every civilian owned gun, completely prevent clandestine manufacture of guns, and prevent smuggling of guns; I can still think of a few easy ways a criminal could aquire a gun.

Plus, there isn't even a logical way to define which guns should be illegal. All are dangerous if misused. A well placed shot from a .22 is fatal; a grazing shot from a 30mm cannon is only a graze and is far from lethal. There is no way that the idiots with the brady campaign or any other gun-grabbing group can even suggest that any one gun is more dangerous than the rest.

The petition is one step, but go further. If you have a friend that hasn't ever shot a gun; take them shooting. Introduce as many people as you can to guns, the more we have on our side, the better.

Answer 7

I just went and signed the petition...... here is the right of every American.....

Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Infringement means these stupid conservative anti-gun politicians cannot change the amendment and start banning
all kinds of guns just because they have NO LIVES and nothing better to do..... the Bill of Rights are the rights of all Americans and we need to speak out when our government trys to take our rights away.

Answer 8

Any "assault weapon" ban in the future will in fact be a semi-auto ban. HR 1022, introduced earlier this year (but didn't go anywhere) would have banned even totally stock Ruger 10/22s.

Answer 9

No, i do no longer think in this bill-and that i'm proud to assert I easily have signed the petition. Bans such as this have truthfully NO result on crime. in fact, arming electorate serves as a deterrent to crime (does this truly should be defined??) and has been shown many cases. attack weapons (and rifles usually) are hardly used in crimes. Handguns are the popular weapon of selection for criminals.

Answer 10

Guess what? Assault rifles ARE banned. Politicians are trying hard to re-classify any semi-automatic as an 'assault' weapon. Why? Because certain liberal factions within our own government would have a disarmed community if they had their durthers. These liberals don't have to worry about self-defense nor home protection because: THEY HAVE ARMED GUARDS 24-7 PAID FOR BY OUR TAX DOLLARS. So, to them anyone with the ability to protect himself/herself is menacing. You have to ask yourself, "Menacing to whom???" You also have to question the motives of these liberals: Gun control, or TOTAL CONTROL. Think about it.

H