[Pelto123]

Guess I will just have to take owning an assault rifle off my bucket list

[Obey-193]

To be honest I don't see the point of a normal civilian owning one .

[hsilman]

My opinion is that the vast majority of gun related crimes are committed or aided by handguns. So why are politicians even talking about "assault rifles"? Which is a stupid ****ing title anyways.

Oh, that's right, we care about the rare events when a bunch of suburban kids get hurt. Not the 90%+ of crimes that are committed in low income urban areas.

[Pump Revolution]

Only 2% of gun crimes are committed with assault rifles, so I doubt an ban will have much effect. Most criminals aren't going to carry around an assault rifle because they are expensive and not exactly concealable. Handguns on the the hand are cheap and widely available.

Crazy people are gonna be crazy regardless of the laws. This does nothing to stop them.

[]TSS[ Dake]

Originally Posted by Obey-193

To be honest I don't see the point of a normal civilian owning one .

I don't see the point of a normal civilian owning an exotic vehicle. Congress can expect my petition to ban the import of exotics to cross their desk soon.

[Obey-193]

Yea I agree with that , but if you look at all this school shootings and **** they were done with legal weapons . I guarantee if that ***** Lanza didn't have any guns at home we he wouldn't drive down the street to try and find a illegal gun

Yea but that's completely different a car can't go into a school and kill 20 kids

[]TSS[ Dake]

You guarantee it? The vast majority of crimes are committed with weapons that obtained illegally.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/...is-it-19990624

Fantastic read about what I believe are the causes of mass shootings.

Long story short? No amount of legislation is going to change what growing up in such a violence-glorifying culture will imprint in your heart.

[hsilman]

Originally Posted by ]TSS[ Dake

I don't see the point of a normal civilian owning an exotic vehicle. Congress can expect my petition to ban the import of exotics to cross their desk soon.

Let's not dumb down the conversation with ****ty analogies that don't make any sense just quite yet, m'kay?

[Obey-193]

The worst part is they can do whatever they want but this will still happen .

[Death_Taco]

Originally Posted by Obey-193

To be honest I don't see the point of a normal civilian owning one .

And why not? I own (by legislation's count) 4.

[]TSS[ Dake]

Really? Because with the evidence he presented:

Originally Posted by Obey-193

To be honest I don't see the point of a normal civilian owning one .

I thought it was a fantastic analogy.

To impose a ban on everything the average person doesn't really need is just absurd.

[Obey-193]

Originally Posted by Death_Taco

And why not? I own (by legislation's count) 4.

Well tell me your point of having one ?

[Mr.Familiar]

Originally Posted by Obey-193

Well tell me your point of having one ?

Because the constitution that this country is founded upon gives him the right to. Other than that, it's nobody's business.

[Pump Revolution]

Originally Posted by Obey-193

Well tell me your point of having one ?

Why do people need cars that go over 70mph, we should ban any car over 130hp...

[Obey-193]

Originally Posted by Mr.Familiar

Because the constitution that this country is founded upon gives him the right to. Other than that, it's nobody's business.

Yea I understand that but when the constitution was written guns like this weren't around , and yes it nobody's business idk maybe I jus feel strong about this because sandy hook is so close to where I live .

[hsilman]

Originally Posted by ]TSS[ Dake

Really? Because with the evidence he presented:

I thought it was a fantastic analogy.

To impose a ban on everything the average person doesn't really need is just absurd.

the point of a fast car is to go faster, which may cause death(though not its intended purpose).

the point of a better gun is to cause death more efficiently. It has no other purpose.

Therefore comparing something that is specifically designed to kill living things with something that is NOT designed to do so, is a flawed analogy. And always will be.

[Death_Taco]

Because the forefather's of our country could not possibly imagine a leap in technology?

It's my right, and it's my hobby. So I bought them. I shoot with them and I enjoy spending time with my friends and dad at the range.

[Obey-193]

Guns were always made to kill no other reason . You cant compare a car to to a gun . There is not one legit reason why someone need a assault riffle in there house , a hand gun will do just fine for protection . Im tired of hearing the BS that its your amendment. We can argue about this for days and its just opinions what we say has no effect on anything .

[solrflare]

Gun control is well within the 2nd Amendment.

[Death_Taco]

Originally Posted by Obey-193

Guns were always made to kill no other reason . You cant compare a car to to a gun . There is not one legit reason why someone need a assault riffle in there house , a hand gun will do just fine for protection . Im tired of hearing the BS that its your amendment. We can argue about this for days and its just opinions what we say has no effect on anything .

A hand gun will NOT always do just fine. What about them limiting capacity (in NY) to <8 rnds of ammunition for magazines? What if you miss, what if they are on drugs, what if they don't go down and that last round comes out?
I know plenty of people who varmint hunt with AR-15s, boar hunt with them, deer hunt with them, etc. They come in all calibers and functions. Plenty of people use them for match shooting and competitions.

These are all NOT legit though right?

[hsilman]

Originally Posted by Obey-193

Guns were always made to kill no other reason . You cant compare a car to to a gun . There is not one legit reason why someone need a assault riffle in there house , a hand gun will do just fine for protection . Im tired of hearing the BS that its your amendment. We can argue about this for days and its just opinions what we say has no effect on anything .

I just want to say I'm not agreeing with this logic, either.

Just pointing out the flawed analogy.

I don't think any of the current regulations in "will issue" states are sensible, and neither is the currently proposed ban.

However, Obama's focus on better background checks sound generally reasonable to me.