• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Popularity can't extend '94 assault weapon ban

I think you Americans might want to consider doing what we do, to get a gun you need to be trained in Firearms, you need to go to a government sponsered shooting range once a year an safely fire a certain amount of rounds, must have been a citizen for 3 years, and a plethoria of other things that make you a safer gun user. I know that you probably think that would make it much more difficult to own a gun, but it doesnt take that long, 90% of the adults in my country own a gun, it just takes a bit more effort.

Just my little tid bit.
 
superskippy said:
and a plethoria of other things that make you a safer gun user.

From strictly a safe shooter standpoint, the firearms accident rate in the u.s. is so small as to make it statistically insignificant, firearms being involved in only approximately 1.5% of all fatal accidents, and well less than .1 of 1% of all accidents causing injury.

Do you believe proper training would result in less gun crime????

I am all for firearms education and training, but not at the hands and insistance of our government.

BTW, Islamic countries have low firearm crime rates also.
 
Last edited:
Ah I understand that CJ, I suppose it's more of a mentality than of the actualy safety of the gun?

Over here one of the reasons we have a very low gun related crime rate is because if you whip out a gun to rob a store for instance, most likely your going to get gunned down in 5-6 seconds.

Heres a clip to show you what I mean http://www.big-boys.com/articles/tension.html
 
There seems to be a lot of ignorance with this assault ban.
I worked in gun store durring said ban and we sold plenty of assault rifles.
Most people dont know but the weapons already in the country were grandfathered in.
So the supplyers stocked up on them before the ban took effect.

Also as quoted by CBS "Loopholes allowed manufacturers to keep many weapons on the market simply by changing their names or altering some of their features or accessories. "

So the crime rate went down even though we had the asssult weapons.
If you want more proof take a look at bushmaster firearms webpage
they couldnt survive 10 years without any sales. They sell ar-15 varients.

source of quote http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/13/politics/main642869.shtml
 
The Republicans who lead Congress plan to let the federal law that bans the manufacture and sale of 19 semiautomatic assault weapons die quietly Monday

There is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle. An assault is a rifle of intermediate calibre capable of alternating between semi-automatic and fully-automatic firing modes. All assault weapons have been illegal since the federal firearms act of 1934, which should be repealed.
 
Last edited:
Its been THIRTEEN MONTHS since the idiotic ban sunsetted.

WHERE ARE ALL THE massacres the ARC's predicted :roll:
 
rudy0908 said:
First off, hammers have an actual non-violent use, while guns are made to take down many targets, be it human or animal.
Thats exactly right.
If guns could not be effectively used to kill people, they wuld be useless.
Whats your point?

Handguns also provide range for shooting that hammers don't. You can't really hold up several people with a hammer like you can with a handgun. A criminal with a hammer will not have the success that a gun-toting criminal will.
Especially if one of the potintial vcitims is carrying a gun...

Have you heard about most of the school shootings in recent years? The students who carried out the attacks certainly didn't own guns, but their law abiding citizen parents did.
Yes. And there have been SO many school shootings were this is the case, it clearly proves that....um....well... I dont know. What DOES it prove?
(Please note: The school shootings were not comitted w/ 'assault weapons')

Yes, the hard core criminals probably already own these guns illegally, but the legalization of them will make them far more plentiful around the country and much easier for anybody, be it law abiding citizen or criminal, to get their hands on.
Isnt that the point?
Shouldnt law-abiding citizens be able to easily get their hands on guns?
Especially with those assault-weapon toting criminals running around?

I love how gun crime is so bad that guns need to be banned, but not so bad that people dont need guns to protect themselves. That's a pretty convenient state of affaird, I'd say.
 
Its also interesting that the people most likely to want the hoplophobic ban to be in place-giving government agents (and criminals) a monopoly on high capacity firearms are the people who tend to be the most anti-cop
 
rudy0908 said:
You can't really hold up several people with a hammer like you can with a handgun.
This other use lie the gun haters chant is just that a lie. Guns are made to do whatever the owner wants to do with them. Box cutters are made to cut boxes, but I can recall an incident where box cutters killed more then 3000 Americans in one day.
rudy0908 said:
Have you heard about most of the school shootings in recent years?
Sure have and the one thing the gun haters fail to understand about school shootings like columbine are they are not for criminal gain in money. They happens because the student shooters feel the have been wronged or bullied.
superskippy said:
you need to go to a government sponsered shooting range once a year an safely fire a certain amount of rounds, must have been a citizen for 3 years, and a plethoria of other things that make you a safer gun user.
You cannot apply this to a right. People have tried to place limits on other rights back in the 60 when Black Americans were fighting for their rights.
IndiConservative said:
Also as quoted by CBS "Loopholes allowed manufacturers to keep many weapons on the market simply by changing their names or altering some of their features or accessories.
Another gun hater catch phrase, “loophole”. There were no loopholes in the late AWB. That bill banned 19 types of firearms. The gun haters became angry when the gun manufactures manufactured firearms to the gun haters specifications.

The gun haters like to use the lie that guns are only protected by the 2nd amend if the guns in question have a militia use. The gun haters get this logic from the Miller case. The funny thing is the 19 types of firearms banned by the late AWB had a militia use because the gun haters claimed the guns banned by the late AWB were only made for military use. Now there is some screwed up logic for you.
 
DHard3006 said:
This other use lie the gun haters chant is just that a lie. Guns are made to do whatever the owner wants to do with them. Box cutters are made to cut boxes, but I can recall an incident where box cutters killed more then 3000 Americans in one day.

Sure have and the one thing the gun haters fail to understand about school shootings like columbine are they are not for criminal gain in money. They happens because the student shooters feel the have been wronged or bullied.

You cannot apply this to a right. People have tried to place limits on other rights back in the 60 when Black Americans were fighting for their rights.

Another gun hater catch phrase, “loophole”. There were no loopholes in the late AWB. That bill banned 19 types of firearms. The gun haters became angry when the gun manufactures manufactured firearms to the gun haters specifications.

The gun haters like to use the lie that guns are only protected by the 2nd amend if the guns in question have a militia use. The gun haters get this logic from the Miller case. The funny thing is the 19 types of firearms banned by the late AWB had a militia use because the gun haters claimed the guns banned by the late AWB were only made for military use. Now there is some screwed up logic for you.

excellent points!!. DiFi whined about Colt et al "violating the spirit" of her moronic law by removing flash hiders etc. What was the spirit of the law-to ban all semi autos she said noting if she had the votes she would have seized them all.

The gun most legal under the constitution should be the standard issue military rifle-the M16A2
 
Back
Top Bottom