Yep. It's fear-mongering at it's finest IMO.

 

That would be what the media and the pro-ban crowd are guilty of.

That would be what the media and the pro-ban crowd are guilty of.

 

They probably are to an extent. However so is the pro-gun crowd.

 

That idea that making it more difficult to own a specific type of weapon or restricting ownership of a specific weapon means that he government is coming to collect your guns and a complete repeal of the 2nd amendment is right around the corner is simply not true and nothing more than fear-mongering.

 

It does occur from both sides I completely agree with that.

This, but also I dont trust the people who will be changing them either.

 

This is absolutely a valid concern as well. That's something we as the voting public have control over though. Elect people you (feel you) can trust.

Couldn't disagree more.

 

The Constitution has served us well for 240 years. It has made us the greatest nation on Earth. To scrap it would be asinine. There is a way to amend it. It's been done 27 times.

 

The first 10 Amendments are the Bill of Rights. Not a bill of suggestions.

 

So we can amend the constitution but we can't amend the No Fly list and how people get on it and whether or not they can dispute being put on the list? Cool. Makes sense to me.

So we can amend the constitution but we can't amend the No Fly list and how people get on it and whether or not they can dispute being put on the list? Cool. Makes sense to me.

 

Where did I say that? I was addressing you wanting to scrap the Constitution.

 

Nice try though.

Scrap it. Write a new one.

 

Like I said, it has made us the greatest nation on Earth. Let's just flush it though.

 

Besides, there is no one in DC smart enough to write a new one.

 

Besides, there is no one in DC smart enough to write a new one.

 

I'm not disagreeing, but I bet most people back in the formative days of our nation said the same thing about the guys we had in charge of doing so too.

I found this on Facebook today and it made a lot of sense.

[ATTACH]56462[/ATTACH]

 

Ok. I'm going to have to fix a few people on here because emotions are high and stupid stuff is being supported.

First off, most of you have no clue what an assault rifle is! It's not your fault you don't know, I will educate you. An assault rifle is a rifle with the ability to go fully automatic. That means if you hold the trigger down, it keeps going bang until you release the trigger or the weapon runs out of ammo. The first assault rifle came about during WWII with the German Stg44. It had the power of a rifle with nearly the rate of fire of a sub-machine gun (full auto). Inspired out of this WWII era gun came the most well knows assault rifles of all time, the AK-47 and the M-16. Both had the ability for fully automatic fire. When people say they want a ban on assault weapons they think they are banning fully automatic rifles from civilian hands. The problem is that these weapons are ALREADY BANNED! See National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearm Ownership Protection Act of 1986. Civilians cannot obtain these weapons. They are for military and police use almost exclusively.

So what is this AR-15 if not an assault rifle? It is a standard rifle that LOOKS LIKE a fully automatic M-16, but does not function like one. It does the same thing as any other standard rifle. One trigger pull = one bang. Most of you are not stupid enough to want to ban a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle (pictured on top), but cry that the AR-15 (pictured on bottom) is a deadly assault rifle when they are literally capable of the same thing. Same ammo, same capacity, same function. The aesthetic differences between the two are what some want to ban and have banned in the past, which if you look at them, are considered deadly features. Some of the things that made a standard functioning rifle considered an assault weapon are:

A folding or telescoping stock - (does not make the weapon any deadlier).

A pistol grip - (does not make the weapon any deadlier).

A bayonet mount - (does not make the weapon any deadlier).

A flash suppressor - (does not make the weapon any deadlier).

You see what I'm getting at? The weapons you actually want banned are ALREADY BANNED. The weapons used in these attacks are regular functioning rifles designed to look like their full auto, military counterparts.

So if the AR-15 isn't more dangerous than any other standard rifle, then why is is the one being used in all of these shootings? Simple. It just happens to be the most popular rifle in the country. It's the iPhone of rifles. It is an affordable, accurate rifle that is easy to personalize because everyone makes accessories for it. It isn't any easier to acquire than other rifles, just more available.

To wrap this up, If you support banning fully automatic assault rifles, fine. You support a law that is already in place for good reason. I agree we generally don't need machine guns. However, if you think we should ban standard functioning rifles because of things like how you hold the grip or how adjustable the buttstock is, you need educated.

Consider yourselves educated on this matter.

 

Whoever posted this should have remembered the Mini-14 has been used in several mass shootings here and abroad most notably in the summer camp in Norway killing 68 and injuring over 100.

That weapon is just as dangerous and should be in question along with the others that can kill as quickly as the AR-15 assault type weapons.

They probably are to an extent. However so is the pro-gun crowd.

 

That idea that making it more difficult to own a specific type of weapon or restricting ownership of a specific weapon means that he government is coming to collect your guns and a complete repeal of the 2nd amendment is right around the corner is simply not true and nothing more than fear-mongering.

 

It does occur from both sides I completely agree with that.

 

How can you blame the pro gun crowd when we've had pro ban people say as much, even on here on ocassion?

 

Banning or wanting a ban on something based on how it looks is flat out fearmongering, as well as stupid, IMO.

How can you blame the pro gun crowd when we've had pro ban people say as much, even on here on ocassion?

 

Banning or wanting a ban on something based on how it looks is flat out fearmongering, as well as stupid, IMO.

 

People saying something doesn't mean it has any chance to happen. Surely you're smart enough to realize that.

Whoever posted this should have remembered the Mini-14 has been used in several mass shootings here and abroad most notably in the summer camp in Norway killing 68 and injuring over 100.

That weapon is just as dangerous and should be in question along with the others that can kill as quickly as the AR-15 assault type weapons.

 

And yet no one screamed for them to be banned and it wasn't included in the Clinton ban. Ask yourself why.

People saying something doesn't mean it has any chance to happen. Surely you're smart enough to realize that.

 

When they're lawmakers? I recall some Dem lawmakers wanting to tax ammo so it's unaffordable not too long ago.

When they're lawmakers? I recall some Dem lawmakers wanting to tax ammo so it's unaffordable not too long ago.

 

Yes, even lawmakers.

And yet no one screamed for them to be banned and it wasn't included in the Clinton ban. Ask yourself why.

 

Heavy lobbying.

Right. And if we have Islamic radicals that were born on American soil presently on the No Fly list then at the very least we should be making it harder for them to get the guns they need for their war.

 

In theory this sounds great but if you are in American citizen you have the right to due process. You can not take a right without said due process. It's more scary to me to give a government the right to take away a right without due process or proof of guilt.

 

Now the way around this specific case would be for the president to declare war on these groups and anyone who openly supported those groups could be charged with treason.