Ummwhat

Just like her husband, Hillary wants to re institute the "Assault Weapons" Ban again.

I really do not understand these lefties and their gun bans. They do nothing. The “Assault Weapon” Ban did nothing in the 90s, and it will not do anything now.

All in all, rifles are only used in something like 2% of homicides.

In 2005 criminals killed almost two times more people with knives, than with rifles and shotguns.

Are you people going to try to ban knives now too? Am I going to have to cut my steak with a plastic spoon or something?

Hell, in 2005 criminals killed two times more people using nothing more than their hands and feet than with rifles.

Are you going to make me wear big padded gloves from now on?

WTF people? Wake up.



Hillary announces anti-crime agenda - First Read - msnbc.com

__________________
"America is not at war. The U.S. military is at war. America is at the
mall."

dahermit

It is not just Hillary, McCain, and Obama have similar views. Voting Republican will not result in a pro-gun president in this coming election.
Let us hope that the next president focuses on more pressing problems: 60,000 deaths from medical mistakes(as opposed to the 20,000 or so gun deaths).

Ummwhat

I agree, McCain has been no friend to the 2nd Amendment. Hopefully he is not just playing us lip service now. But I think he is.

Obama is even worse.

__________________
"America is not at war. The U.S. military is at war. America is at the
mall."

discoman

Well, if this information is true about Hillary Clinton wanting to reinstate the assault weapons ban,I sure the NRA, and the Gun and Assault Rifle lobby will do everything in their power to see that she and, Barack Obama
lose the election this fall.I heard about McCain, but he was not for the assault rifle ban the last time I checked.

Ummwhat

Hey may not have been for the "assault weapons" ban. But he has voted poorly for gun owners rights.

__________________
"America is not at war. The U.S. military is at war. America is at the
mall."

abrandnewworld

The ONLY reason guns are more controlled is for the fact that a well armed civilian population can keep a government in check. You take the guns away from the people, and the government has all the control. That is why the 2nd amendment was written. It is a right of the people to bear arms to protect itself, not from foreign forces, from domestic forces. All the dictators of the past have one thing in common: GUN CONTROL!!

__________________
QUESTION AUTHORITY!!!
CONSTANT VIGILANCE!!!

The United States is a secular government taken hostage by religious fanatics.

"The United States, in no form, is founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams, 2nd POTUS, in Treaty of Tripoli

LiveUninhibited

I agree that this was probably the intention behind the 2nd amendment, but that doesn't mean that things have not changed.

In some ways, the 2nd amendment is even more important than it was. If more civilians carried guns, then it would be harder for violent criminals to operate, including terrorists.

There are other things that the framers could not have anticipated, like WMDs and assault rifles. But if you were to ask them if they would include cannons in the 2nd amendment, I'm not sure what they would say. They weren't very clear what they mean by "arms."

Those who want to ban guns today do not do so because of some government conspiracy to have more control over citizens. It is much easier, and much more effective, to manipulate the masses than to use force. Those who want to ban guns probably really do believe it will help reduce gun violence, but for some reason they do not realize that they are wrong.

That being said, I'm not sure about people being free to carry assault rifles. They have a much higher potential to cause collateral damage than handguns, and if a criminal were to get a hold of one they could do a lot of damage. But it's mostly moot because a better gun for a criminal would be some kind of semi-automatic uzi, as they are easier to conceal and easier to wield in the situations they would use them. I assume the 2% of homicides you cited was for all rifles, not assault rifles. But the ban you refer to has to do with semi-automatic weapons, not necessarily rifles...

Ummwhat

How have things changed?

I agree.

It is because they knew technology would advance that they used the broad term “arms”. If they wanted to restrict it to a simple category of weapons they would have defined that weapon.

That does not mean that it can not happen.

This may be true, but it does not mean that it is right. So do not make excuses for them please.

Yes, the 2% includes all rifles (and shotguns IIRC). That should tell you that an even smaller percentage of that 2% is “assault weapons” and assault rifles.

Have you ever held an uzi? They are not so small or easy to conceal. Easier than a 240 G yes. But not as easy as some. Also, an UZI is no more dangerous than a pistol in the same caliber

__________________
"America is not at war. The U.S. military is at war. America is at the
mall."

Kazikli Bey

Funny, you know that two major fascists, Hitler and Mussolini were vegetarians. You should keep an eye out for all the vegetarians who are trying to install a dictatorship as well.

__________________

AzTeK

I've been exposed!

__________________