Do you believe that assault weapons should be widely accessible to the public?

[Ninjazzed]

This guy clearly got his feelings hurt over a comment I made about gun bans then he left some pretty evasive comments to the true topic at hand. I simply stated that felons shouldn’t have access to any assault weapon, which would directly include semi-automatic rifles or machine guns. Then he started going off on a long incoherent spiel which I’m too exhausted to read at this point.

[Oppressed_Leecher]

I think everyone should carry a pistol at their side and assault rifle in their car.
what we need are extensive background checks and mental health assessments.
banning guns altogether will just make crime skyrocket. an armed society is a good society. I recently seen a video of a church shooting that ended when a pastor pulled out his pistol and ended the mass shooters life before he can take any more live. the shooter ended up killing two church goers. I want to post it here but Im sure gag would take it down it's quite graphic. but if no one had guns there could have far far more death in that church

[Oppressed_Leecher]

concealednation.org/.../

[Oppressed_Leecher]

suspect had a sawn-off 12 gauge those things to massive damage. 5 or 6 church members pulled out their steel and ended the threat God bless Texas

[Ninjazzed]

True but there is a reason people need to register their weapon and obtain permits to keep said weapons.

[Ninjazzed]

I saw that exact video a year ago, but he definitely wasn’t a squirrelly amateur.

[FoxnEagle]

Yes
A lot of women carry pepper spray, that's a-pepper-weapon
Why can't men have a-salt-weapons?

[Ninjazzed]

There’s a difference between a weapon that stuns and a weapon with a bullet capability to shred flesh.

I don’t recall any brand of pepper spray that kills people, it being illegal to carry, or one that requires a permit.

[Ninjazzed]

I got the joke but some pepper spray isn’t allowed through airport security.

[Ninjazzed]

Also I don’t even use pepper spray, I prefer tasers.

[FoxnEagle]

Shocking :P

[N192K001]

Yes, but what I espouse is closer to the Swiss-model of an armed citizenry with basic-training.

This is based on the original-intent of the Founding Fathers' generation. The “Militia Act of 1792” parts Ⅰ & Ⅱ defined the citizenry as the Militia, though the 1st definition only included all free able-bodied White male-citizens aged 18-45.
https://constitution.org/1-Activism/mil/mil_act_1792.htm https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/article/militia-act-of-1792/
ALL the defined were to enroll, arm themselves with military-grade equipment, and submit to training.

The “Militia Act of 1862” expanded the definition ("all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five").
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2017/winter/summer-of-1862

The “Militia Act of 1903” expanded it even further (to include "bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age").
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/496/334

But all this citizenry-wide reserve-militia system was repealed with setting-up of the current, permanent U. S. military. (Hell, with the Civil Rights movement, the definition probably would have been expanded to include women, I would wager.) If we kept the system, the U. S. probably wouldn't have this unhealthy relationship with firearms:
• the unfamiliar fearing it like a mystic, demon-possessed boom-stick that induces instant blood-lust on contact, due to the system's failure to familiarize, educate, and train the citizenry; and/or
• fools who possess the firearms but treat it as a cool toy, a mere instrument to express emotions, and/or a compensation-tool for something perceived to be lacking, due to the system's failure to show the citizenry the firearm's horrible capacity for destruction and train them to treat it with the appropriate level of respect & care.

Nope, they are instruments of personal-security & national-security. They are to protect you, your loved-ones, and your community when agents of the state cannot/will not. And hence, they should be treated accordingly. And we'd know that (and would likely avoid the gun-violence seen today) if We the People were only taught that from the very beginning.

Imagine how many foolish, expensive, bloody wars (that later was proven to be utterly worthless!) we could have avoided if we knew that approving meant that we personally and/or our loved-ones could be the 1s called to fight and die out there? What a waste!

[JackSmy]

@N192K001 Do you own, and shoot any kind of rifles, handguns, or shotguns, just for target practice, or hunting?

[N192K001]

@JackSmy With worldwide spike in anti-Asian violence, I got a permit and was just about to purchase a Kalashnikov, but was on last minute stopped due to a family-member's suicidal-tendencies. Darn it! And I was already imagining on regular practice the gun-range, reading on gun-maintenance, and researching on add-ons & customizations available online. With AK's being easy to maintain, I thought I would expand to also get an AR-15 in a year's time, when I'm finally used to the basic processes.

The last time I shot was with a 0.22-caliber rifle for the Rifle Shooting merit-badge. Due to a partnership with the U. S. Army, my Boy Scout troop had the privilege of summer-camp in their grounds, so I ended-up receiving some very basic training from an Army instructor. Since then, I decided that 1 day, I'd get my own rifle when the time comes.

One day… One day…

[JackSmy]

@N192K001 I believe that you have good intentions, but comparing the US, to Switzerland, two TOTALLY different cultures, and assuming that Americans would accept compulsory service, in the military, training, to maintain weapons in their homes it not only incongruous, with American culture, but overtly offensive to Many, according to the 2nd Amendment.
Yeah, we have a lot of nut jobs that steal guns, or get them illegally, and do HORRIBLE things, but why is it that the government always thinks that limiting the RIGHTS, or LEGAL citizens having guns, will stop crime and murders?
I the MOST RESTRICTIVE, almost NAZI places with such strict gun controls, the homicide rate, the robbery rate is the highest? Yet in places where Law-Abiding citizens have the most privately owned guns, the crime rate is so much less?
I don't really disagree, too much, with many of your ideas, but they are not part of the American culture.
I do disagree with your mention of the Militia Act, and the presumption that the modern American Citizen is, actually, a part of the anachronistic ideal of the citizen Militia. I think you have misunderstood this, in the Modern Age.
The Supreme Court ruled, in 2008, in District of Columbia, v. Heller, that it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, and has NOTHING to do with a "Militia" or service in said Militia or Military service.

[N192K001]

@JackSmy True. It may have been accepted by generations past (& citizens of democracies outside the U. S.), but it is odd & unfamiliar to modern Americans. I've had to cope with that over the years after public shootings, hearing of many crazy rape-allegations with the supposed-victims in ridiculously-vulnerable situations, or just discovering from people around me (especially girls & women) that have lived their lives without ever learning to protect themselves. (It's like they've been trained to be victims!) And we wonder why masses of people fall for destructive victim-mentality politics & ideologies.

Meanwhile, the P. E. of students in Thailand is Muay Thai, and for students i the free parts of Korea, it's Taekwondo. Korean male students are required military-service, as are their peers in the free side of China (mostly Taiwan). Back in the Philippines, I missed it, but P. E. became our martial-arts, and R. O. T. C. was almost re-instituted a few years ago (but more inclusive to also include women). And in Russia, teens have the Юнармия ("YunArmiya";「Young Army」) that make Boy Scouts in any country look like… well, Boy Scouts.

In all fairness I'll admit that I have yet to compare crime-rates in those jurisdictions with the U. S.'s. (I'll do that soon.) Likewise, whether someone actually internalizes the training (or just goes through the motions to just pass requirements, like my older-sister who ended-up falling to serious chronic abuse later in life) and lives a safer life is falls on the individual.

[N192K001]

And as to the U. S. Supreme Court, their opinions evolve and will even contradict each other over time. I was surprised to discover that original intent (which is crucial in contracts) was not as emphasized in their training now as I thought. Regardless, their opinions whatever they are now have power now, and I cannot control that. The only thing I can control is myself (under certain constraints, of course). I can only prove my stances with my life, actions, and their results. Well, that as soon as I can implement my ideas with fewer restraints as they are now. Whenever that will be. One day… One day…

[BCA6010]

Misspellings aside, this guy is correct on most of his points, except the AR and most relatively modern rifles do have Fire Selector Switches; they just don't have the ability to use a full auto or burst function. Also "rapid fire" IS a term used in the military that fits between the terms "sustained" and "cyclic" in regards to how many rounds are being fired within a period of time. However, it is a relative term that changes in value depending on the weapon in question, and generally only used for machine guns.

AR-15s and other self-loading rifles available to the public are not capable of firing any faster than a semi-automatic pistol; they can only fire as rapidly as the shooter can pull the trigger.

[ChrisMaster69]

Nope.

you can kill people just as effectively with single shot firearms.

I would even go as far as saying, you could deliberately kill more individuals with single aimed shots from a weapon that self loads.

I know how my target groupings are at 25m, 50, 100, 300m, 500m with single and auto. Equally I know how quickly I can get single aimed rounds off and on target.

I suppose it’s a minor miracle that they don’t teach gun owners in the US anything about the principles of marksmanship.

[ChrisMaster69]

There is an opportunity going forward to ban what will be the new NATO Calibre weapons from having a civilian version.

The UK banned Self Loading Rifles, after a a mass shooting in Hungerford, he used 7.62 ammunition. There is a light and day between a wound from 7.62 and 5.56.

This is reasoning behind the move to 6.8mm which has superior killing power over a 5.56.

If they let companies produce a civilian version, the current deaths will increase, as a lot of people recover from 5.56mm rounds.

I suppose it’s a test case for weapons controls, there are enough 5.56 weapon systems in civilian ownership to cover the new war and then some.

www.defensenews.com/.../

[NaultD]

There's been a new proposal for gun control. Gun owners pay an insurance that cover mass shootings and all the gun violence damages. People can gun each other down but the average tax payers won't be left holding the bill. That's a way better solution that i could have come with being as anti gun that i am.

Sounds fair enough for me. Second amendment right is uphold at the same time the house has the ability to tax. I really don't give a fuck about gun culture, so they should figure out a long-term solution on there own terms so governments won't interfere.

If only a national rifle association that cared made regulations on there own terms before a government that dosen't care about them made regulations for them.

[JackSmy]

@naultd Insurance, because someone owns a rifle? GO FUCK YOURSELF!!
You obviously have no CLUE about the issue, and just think you have a solution, and that is a bullshit "Solution" that will create myriad more problems than it solves!!
Don't post on things you don't know about, IDIOT!!
300 MILLION LEGAL Weapons, in the hands of LAW-Abiding citizens, that HAVE NEVER SHOT AND KILLED ANYONE, and you want them to pay INSURANCE, because they LEGALLY OWN WEAPONS, as mandated, by the Second Amendment?

By that reasoning, all BLOG posters, "Influencers" should also need insurance, posting, under the First Amendment!!

Maybe a better solution, is for you, and the douchbags that suggest this, pull your collective heads, out of your asses, and think about this!
What about golf clubs? Maybe they need insurance, for when one slips, and hits someone?
I think maybe the POSTAL Department needs insurance, for when I get paper cuts, on the stamp coils!!
Grow up, you little child!! Your post is totally bullshit!

[NaultD]

@JackSmy don't kill the messenger. This proposal is in motion weeks ago i just support it. If you gun nuts endlessly edges yourself near orgasm only able to finish killing a person. You got bigger problems then me and, that's arguably taxable.

Let's think of it as an opportunity. Create a more safe gun enthusiast culture on your own terms before the government takes it away. Times a ticken. Tick tock, balls in your court do something about it right now.

Create a better gun culture now or there will be a tax collection agent getting his due with all the mass shootings.

Think of it as a wake up call and create the rules because everyone else will.

[Juxtapose]

"Think of it as a wake up call and create the rules because everyone else will."

^^ this

[JackSmy]

@naultd You obviously have nothing CONSTRUCTIVE to say, so SHUT THE FUCK UP!! If you had something, like a solution, rather than just Liberal BULLSHIT JUDGEMENT, I would be happy to heart you out, but you post hate, and judgement, so go fuck yourself!
We need solutions, to the gun violence problem, and not judgmental pricks that have no idea about the problem!

[JackSmy]

@naultd Thanks for the name-calling, like you are a child, on a playground! Also, your total IGNORANCE of the issue makes me laugh!! Keep on telling these myths and stories!!
Look at the statistics of who is killing WHOM: People stealing, or buying ILLEGALLY in most cases! Some of the bastards even killed family, when stealing the guns they used to do mass shootings.
Then look at the places where gun crime is the highest: the most RESTRICIVE LAWS AGAINST, law-abiding citizens, owning guns!
The criminals get the guns, and the law abiding citizens get murdered, because they cannot protect themselves, because IGNORANT ASSHOLES and politicians think that banning more guns, from law-abiding citizens is going to stop gun crime!!
Pull your head out of your ass!!

[JackSmy]

Calling these semi-automatic rifles, "ASSAULT WEAPONS" just furthers the false, and irrational Anti-Firearm stigma, that the Dumbocrats are NOTORIOUS, for! They cherry-pick data, to support false claims, and seek to ban these, and disarm only LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS!
The LEGAL Semi-Automatic weapons ARE NOT ASSAULT RIFLES, except in the lying media, parroting the Dumbocrat lies!
If these weapons are so bad, why is it, that in places where they are most restricted, and banned, there is the highest levels of gun crime?

YES, the legal, Semi-automatic rifles, should be legal to any person that passes the background check, and isn't a Felon, Domestic Abuser, Drug Abuser, but rather, is just a LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN, choosing to exercise their RIGHT, under the 2nd Amendment!

[Trainborn35]

Assault weapon is a meaningless term to describe scary looking long guns. Handguns kill more. Background checks are performed, but they can fail. Only enforcement of laws to the fullest extent works Unless Democrats give us better criminal control and not play sympathy for the devil each time a criminal murders someone, background checks mean nothing. The Pulse nightclub shooter failed a background check: the gun store owner even called the FBI and was told there was not enough evidence to investigate further.

Another example: despite numerous complaints about the mental health of the Parkland shooter, the powers that be let him keep his guns when they placed him in foster care.

[Goforit1010]

The problem is you can't define what an assault weapon is. No one can. It's a made up term the media came up with and now everyone thinks they know everything about guns when they use that term.

When you define what an assault weapon is, then we can have a discussion about what weaponry the public should be allowed to own.

[najekim]

Military grade weapons should stay with the military. If you are wanting a true "assault" weapon, do the country a favor and join the Army or Marines. Or go through all the red tape and fees to get a Class 3 firearm. All semi-automatic operating firearms, double-action firearms, and single-action firearms must be unrestricted, including magazines and ammo, to any law-abiding citizen who wish to obtain them. The only two caveats I would put on the obtaining a firearm is that the would-be owner shows proof they have passed certifiable firearms safety classes for the type of firearm they are wanting to obtain and perhaps show certification that they are mentally sound enough to possess firearms.

[darkcloud1945]

most people could not tell the difference between semi automatic and full automatic. But THE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNIST PARTY OF AMERICA does not care about the truth they out right lie just like like they did with four years of Russia Russia Russia. A semi auto weapon you have to pull the trigger to fire each bullet a full automatic you hold the trigger back for 2,4,15,100 bullets fired non stop , but they lump semi and full auto as one with no clarification. OH buy the way most of the gun used in street crimes are not bought at gun shows and shop but on the black market but that does not matter to them they just want all guns taken away and will do anything say anything to meet their ends

[jshm2]

He's just a dick who thinks he knows guns and conspiracies.

He is mostly right that military grade stuff is very different. But he's wrong on the premise it isn't available to civilians.

Also, he's barking up the wrong tree anyway. The question was more checks and restrictions on unsuitable people owning guns. Not selection of guns available.

[Anonymous]

Well you could have read what he said but apparently you are too ignorant to do that.

Not sure why i am wasting my time with you but whatever.

A semi automatic rifle is not an assault weapon.

No member of the public has legal access to any assault weapons.

What an assault rifle does and what it is for is unload its entire magazine in a very short time frame, it allows you to breach a room suddenly and put fire into everyone in that room in a time frame small enough that 'hopefully' they are all dead before they can return fire against you.

[Ninjazzed]

I already read his paragraphs, idiot. You’re making bold assumptions that you already know the full discussion. I never said he was WRONG but he is militantly defending his opinions out of context.

He basically thinks everyone, including felons, should have access to these weapons.

[Ninjazzed]

Troll elsewhere and do yourself a favor.

[Ninjazzed]

Define “assault weapon” and humor me. I already know the answer, I just wanna see if you’re actually going to tell.

[Opinion Owner]

Quote: Then he started going off on a long incoherent spiel which I’m too exhausted to read at this point.

That is not what he thinks, what both he and i have said to you is that an assault weapon is a rifle with a burst or full auto fire mode.

[Ninjazzed]

Those screenshots covered the bare minimum. I have plenty more. The conversation didn’t end there.

I never contested that. What he is saying is that anyone, regardless of criminal background, should have access to a high caliber-weapon.

[Opinion Owner]

Well now you have just moved the goal posts.

There hasn't been a single mention of caliber in this thread and caliber is nothing what so ever to do with assault rifles.

[Pterodon]

Of course. A California federal judge just ruled California’s ban on those rifles was unconstitutional. They’re no assault rifles. They’re the next evolution of firearms. Remember there were muskets first. It’s just changing technology

[Pterodon]

Felons don’t have legal access to them. Anyone with a restraining order on their record, a felony on their record and those dishonorably discharged are not allowed by law to buy, possess or own them.

[Ninjazzed]

He tried to claim that every human being deserves to be entrusted with an assault weapon. Felons definitely shouldn’t, let alone a military-grade weapon.

[Pterodon]

They’re not military grade. They only look like it

[Pterodon]

Nor are they automatic weapons. They are semi-automatic. Fully automatic weapons are not allowed to be sold to the public. Learn your weapons BEFORE making such claims

[Ninjazzed]

I wasn’t referring to fully automatics, obviously not every military-grade weapon is limited to being fully automatic.

[Ninjazzed]

This a false equivalency, I was just adding from his conversation in the texts. I didn’t bring that up.

[Pterodon]

Others that are not allowed guns is anyone declared mentally deficient by a judge and users of illegal drugs. Here’s the catch. Marijuana even tho it’s legal in some states it is not legal on the federal level. Purchasing a firearm is not allowed if you smoke weed period

[Ninjazzed]

Only recreational weed, right?

[Pterodon]

No. All weed

[Ninjazzed]

That’s pretty ass. I have a cousin who suffers from frequent seizures and medicinal marijuana is the only thing that calms her down and helps her cope with it.

I’m guessing she wouldn’t be granted access anyway.

[Pterodon]

You’re not even allowed edibles. These weed users are committing a felony by purchasing, owning or possessing a firearm

[Ninjazzed]

Guess I better move to California.

[Pterodon]

Why?

[Ninjazzed]

Weed is legal there, I thought everyone knew that?

[Pterodon]

It is but you can’t buy, own or possess a firearm if you use it

[Pterodon]

Like I said even tho it’s legal in the state it is not legal by FEDERAL law. A gun purchase is a federal transaction not a state one

[Surely]

With most of the Hollywood actors and actresses supporting the Democratic agenda.
They should stop making movies promoting the idea that all criminals possess and use fully automatic weapons to commit crimes.
Probably most people against guns figure that all guns are fully automatic fire and available at your local Walmart or sporting goods store..
I haven’t met a gun yet that shot anyone without the help of a person!

[Surely]

One more thing! Where do you buy those magazines that hold endless amounts of ammunition that they use in the movies?

[humanearth]

I think everyone should own a gun thats over 18. Even if that person is a wackjob. Right to bear arm no matter how crazy you are. You go nuts with a gun. With everyone having a gun. Someone will take you out

[Rangers]

There's no such thing as an assault weapon, and I'm done with anti gun cucks, if you're not gonna come here and try to take it from me, then just shut the fuck up.

[Juxtapose]

No, America needs actual gun control cus holy shit our mass shootings are a fucking problem.

[msc545]

Assault weapons are just semi-automatic rifles with cosmetic enhancements.

[OddBeMe]

If we could know who had the assault weapons and who in their house might be crazy, I’d feel better.

[michael1469]

Yes then the right wing nut jobs can all kill each other and make the world a better place

[lpoots]

the world does not care
as these weapons only kill
fellow americans