[quote name='granturismo']It's not because they are scary looking. It is because they've been used in several mass shootings, and have capability's that over-extend what people would need a gun for in the first place. It's unnecessary to have such dangerous weapons in public circulation, some would argue it's unnecessary to have guns at all in public circulation, but then some would say it is necessary for whatever their points..however how can you say that assault weapons are necessary? That's the issue here.
Being scary looking doesn't come into it. Why anyone would argue for assault weapons to be legal is just stubborn pig headed irrational right to freedom to own or do whatever, because of listing A. B. C. It's just not i don't see why it's even an argument. The fact that government tyranny argument is used, is just ridiculous. If the government wants tyranny, you ain't gonna stop them. And wouldn't that argument be basis for owning all types of illegal weapons? The fact it's even used says to me there's no actual reasons that justify not banning them from public circulation.[/QUOTE]
This guy is the prime example of the emotional knee jerk reaction Congress isn't supposed to have.
Do you not see that they are using your emotional reaction to push legislation that coincides with their ideals? Their legislation will not stop the mass shooting. They admit it themselves.
F&S: You touched on this subject, so I’m going to go right to reader James Taufmann, who is from Aurora, Colo., and pointed out he had a mass shooting in his town, as we all know. And he asked, “If the proposed changes that you’re advocating—banning AR-style rifles, limiting magazines to 10 rounds, tightening background checks, improving mental health services—if all that had been in effect a year prior to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, do you think those new laws would have prevented the massacre?”
V.P. BIDEN: No, but it would have saved lives, even if it was only one. We can’t say how many we’d save. Would it have saved one? Would it have saved three? Would it have saved 10? I don’t know. But it would have saved lives.
And when you’re talking about the relationship between saving some beautiful 6-year-old’s life, even if it’s only one, versus the ability of someone to have 30 rounds versus 10, how does that affect their right to either hunt or their right to protect themselves?
F&S: Well, this brings up a common question that we got from a lot of readers, and I’ll use the reader Mike Hooker who asked this: “AR-style rifles, or what are being called assault rifles, are in fact used for many legitimate purposes. What is the reason for banning these popular rifles when, according to the 2011 FBI Uniform Crime Report, they are used in fewer than 1 percent of all firearm-related criminal homicides?”
V.P. BIDEN: Because there are so many out there, and police don’t want more out there, because they’re being outgunned. That’s the reason why.
F&S: According to the statistics, more handguns are used in crimes.
V.P. BIDEN: Well, by the way, that’s true. That’s absolutely true. That’s why we want to limit the clips, the size of the magazine on handguns.
Less than 1% of criminal homicides....
So Mr. Biden says we have to ban Assault weapons because it may have saved at least 1 life.
Then why don't we ban all guns? It may save two lifes....what kind of animal wouldn't want to save that second life?
[quote name='kill3r7']It comes down to an issue of rights. If you have a "right" you don't want it to be curtailed in any way, shape or form. We as free responsible individuals should be able to police ourselves to prevent the need for government intervention. Unfortunately, based on the events of the last 30 some odd years we have shown over and over again to be incapable of being responsible gun owners. If you fail to police yourself then the government will gladly do it for you.
So gun owners have no one to blame but themselves. That said this issue will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS.[/QUOTE]
You have got to be kidding me....two in a row.
This is a prime example of someone who has tunnel vision.
Could any of us imagine if we allowed our government to decide that "we failed to police ourselves, so they will gladly do it for us" aka guilty by association?
my god,
Smoking
Drinking
Driving
Internet (Piracy)
Prescriptions
Theft
Rope
Knives
Swimming
Eating
Children
I mean we could have our very own KGB! It would be great, and we would all be better off!