Proof of why banning assault rifles = agenda for all guns

[Skip Reming]

The liberals are looking to take all of our guns. This is their agenda but they will not say it because they will not get voted in.

I was watching this video of Piers Morgan getting trashed and the whole time you can see this agenda clear as day if you have an ounce of logic floating in your skull.

They want to ban assault rifles. Why? To stop people getting killed by them. Then they list spree shooting where the perp had an assault rifle. But what you realize is that this is a very small portion of people killed by guns every year. Banning them will stop NO ONE from getting killed. It is just the best weapon for spree killing, but one is not needed to spree kill. It can be done with a handgun just as easily.

But what are assault rifles really good for for the avg citizen? To resist a tyrannical government. But we are immune to this, right? Was germany? Was spain?

So there are twice as many assault rifles/long rifles as handguns. But handguns killed 6-7 more times the people. So if liberals are looking to ban guns to stop murder, it makes sense they would go after handguns...which they will. As with all stealing of our rights, it happens piece by piece.

Video of someone saying it better than me

 

[Deleted member 484047]

Uhh, was this ever in question? The far lefts agenda towards firearms has never been in doubt. Overturn the 2nd, ban them, confiscate them by force if necessary.

 

[TeTe]

It's because banning scary "assault" rifles is low hanging fruit. They reference the Brady Bill all the time on this one.

But yes, the number of people killed with long guns in general on year to year basis is less than 5 percent. The number killed with "assault" rifles is even lower.

If you ever need a perfect example of how much of joke going after "assault" rifles is, watch the Chiraq documentary on YouTube (I'll link one of the videos if I can find it). In that particular video, the narrator follows around and interviews the Village Boys, and at one point he's driving around in a van with four or five of them. The gangbanger in the passenger seat say something like: They want to ban assault rifles, but we don't use assault rifles, we use handguns. We get right up on your ass and shoot you.

When you have gangbangers knocking politicians and point out their flawed logic, you know that that whole thing is downright ridiculous.

 

[ultramanhyata]

They want to ban assault rifles. Why? To stop people getting killed by them. Then they list spree shooting where the perp had an assault rifle. But what you realize is that this is a very small portion of people killed by guns every year. Banning them will stop NO ONE from getting killed. It is just the best weapon for spree killing, but one is not needed to spree kill.

I thought educated, NRAniacs knew enough not to use the meaningless term "assault rifle" when referring to firearms. Better head back to Gun Nutter U. for some more credit hours, bro.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

What is even more stupid is some states require that you bring along a friend if you want to rent a gun from them and shoot.

I use to go to this place in NJ to rent a gun and shoot. I dont have a firearm license or anything. But now the rules have changed. I have to bring someone along if I dont have a firearm license.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

What is even more stupid is some states require that you bring along a friend if you want to rent a gun from them and shoot.

I use to go to this place in NJ to rent a gun and shoot. I dont have a firearm license or anything. But now the rules have changed. I have to bring someone along if I dont have a firearm license.

I believe it is the same in San Diego County.

 

[Fawlty]

To think the government is coming to take your guns is on about the same level of stupidity as thinking we're going to deport 10 million central americans.

 

[dontsnitch]

Ben Shapiro claimed that in that very interview, Piers had a boy in a wheelchair that he intended to wheel out, a la Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine, but after Ben accused him of "standing on the graves of Sandy Hook", Piers couldn't pull the trigger.

The thought of flying in some poor kid in a wheelchair after being shot, only to turn him around and send him home with no airtime because of a preemptive attack by Shapiro is sad and funny all at once.

 

[Ruprecht]

If the goal was for the US to imitate other nation's firearms policies, restricting certain types of firearms just wouldn't do it.
You'd need to get rid of the whole idea of firearms for common self defence, and that just doesn't seem likely, does it?
In fact my understanding is that firearm ownership and legislation in the US has been heading in the other direction.

 

[Skip Reming]

I thought educated, NRAniacs knew enough not to use the meaningless term "assault rifle" when referring to firearms. Better head back to Gun Nutter U. for some more credit hours, bro.

What does this matter at all to the discussion or to any laws that are made?

This is as educated a post as you can make on this topic? Why argue the name "assault rifles" or anything else. It is meaningless. Just like banning assault rifles to stop spree killings. Instead tackle the millions of crazy people living freely and able to buy guns or take ones from family members who do not lock them up.

If the goal was for the US to imitate other nation's firearms policies, restricting certain types of firearms just wouldn't do it.
You'd need to get rid of the whole idea of firearms for common self defence, and that just doesn't seem likely, does it?
In fact my understanding is that firearm ownership and legislation in the US has been heading in the other direction.

What is the goal of banning "assault rifles" then???

The thing is that the other countries do not have the constitution and most were not born out of revolution.

The best way to take away our freedoms is to do it with the low hanging fruit first. Make it seem reasonable to ban a certain type of gun and then work up to the next and the next.
It is basically the libs saying "Just the tip"
yeah, my mother's pills went from $27 to over $300 with obamacare's tip.

 

[Ruprecht]

What does this matter at all to the discussion or to any laws that are made?

This is as educated a post as you can make on this topic? Why argue the name "assault rifles" or anything else. It is meaningless. Just like banning assault rifles to stop spree killings. Instead tackle the millions of crazy people living freely and able to buy guns or take ones from family members who do not lock them up.

Next you'll be referring to detachable magazines as "clips"...

 

[KILL KILL]

No one in the government wants your guns TS. Relax

 

[Ruprecht]

What is the goal of banning "assault rifles" then???

The thing is that the other countries do not have the constitution and most were not born out of revolution.

The best way to take away our freedoms is to do it with the low hanging fruit first. Make it seem reasonable to ban a certain type of gun and then work up to the next and the next.
It is basically the libs saying "Just the tip"
yeah, my mother's pills went from $27 to over $300 with obamacare's tip.

"Assault rifle" bans are usually a reaction to the highly publicised mass shootings which involve them.
Usually they are fetish objects for the revenge fantasies of these pathetic, alienated losers.
The idea is that making it harder for them to act out their fantasies will stop them from doing so.
Handguns and military style long arms are the targets. Less for any practical reason, than for the types of individuals attracted to them.

Not happening in the US though, is it?
Haven't your national laws on "assault rifles" lapsed a long time ago, aren't more and more states issuing concealed carry licences and aren't firearms ownership numbers increasing quite dramatically?

 

[oldshadow]

Yes there are people on power that what to remove or so restrict firearms to civilians that almost no one can own one and the are supported and pushed by anti 2nd organizations.

They will take anything they can get but have stated before what they want.

The good new is what they want and what they can get is 'very different. That is as long as the pro 2nd keep up the fight.

If you want to see how they don't want to compromise look at what they said about the Virginia compromise.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

No one in the government wants your guns TS. Relax

No one in the government wants your guns TS. Relax

Sick of this disingenuous one liner that gets trotted out in every gun discussion .

There might not be anyone willing to come out and say as much for reasons of pragmatism, but you cannot seriously contend that there ARE NOT plenty of influential people hate the idea of private gun ownership, and if it could be done in a pen stroke it'd be done. That's a fact.

 

[Hallelujah]

It's funny that we have to title all these threads "PROOF". Fucking leftist idiots won't believe anything that goes against their feelings and the Marxist agenda. Proof the sky is blue. No it is light blue. smh

Yuri Bezmenov said it best "information means nothing". Ben Shapiro actually touches on this in one of his Heritage Foundation speeches. The left ignores information and only attacks emotions/feelings. Obviously this is very effective.

 

[Hallelujah]

Uhh, was this ever in question? The far lefts agenda towards firearms has never been in doubt. Overturn the 2nd, ban them, confiscate them by force if necessary.

This is actually a good thing but probably not how you think.

 

[7437]

Remember when assaut rifles were banned? I do. It didnt lead to all guns being banned. In a literal sense, the assault weapons ban did not lead to a gun ban. There is an unarguable fact. Proof.

Edit: assault weapons bans are fucking stupid anyways. Just shit from people who dont know guns.

 

[ultramanhyata]

What does this matter at all to the discussion or to any laws that are made?

Because an "assault rifle" is a fully automatic, military grade weapon. The law already makes ownership of these rifles by American citizens a very difficult and time consuming process.

I don't think an assault rifle has ever been used in any of the spree killings committed in the US.

So, yeah, that aspect of your argument is baseless and pointless. Sorry to bring this to your attention.

 

[KILL KILL]

Sick of this disingenuous one liner that gets trotted out in every gun discussion .

There might not be anyone willing to come out and say as much for reasons of pragmatism, but you cannot seriously contend that there ARE NOT plenty of influential people hate the idea of private gun ownership, and if it could be done in a pen stroke it'd be done. That's a fact.

Who are these people in government that want to completely outlaw guns?