I am against assault weapons pure and simple. There are no uses except to kill people quickly.

Our founding fathers wanted to make sure that if a militia was needed quickly they could count on private citizens who owned their own firearms to be ready to fight for the country.
We seem to have the 2nd ammendment skewered to say that if you want a gun then just go buy one. The frontier is gone, the only protection we need now is from other private citizens. The problem is keeping guns out of the hands of people that have lost the "right" to own one.
Unfortunetly through bugalaries and from unlocked cars and other illegal means the guns are ending up in the wrong hands. It's a snowball effect to where the more criminals who obtain guns the more we need private citizens to step up and even out the ranks of the armed.
When I think of gun control I think of getting the guns out of the criminals hands. The problem is it's working about as well as Prohibition or the War on Drugs. Americans are always going to drink alcohol and they're always going to have their guns. You can pass all the laws you want but there will never be "gun control" in the US. To think differently is foolish.
Catching mental illness early is one of the only obtainable goals if we want to cut down or eliminate the senseless slaughter in violent acts committed by someone with mental illness.
You're not going to get the guns so it's time to focus our energies on keeping them out of the wrong hands.
Stiff mandatory penalties for people caught with firearms they shouldn't have. NO EARLY REALESE!

I don't know what "the answer" is but I do not think an "assault" weapon ban will do much. Functionally an AR-15 is no different than a Remington 750 Woodsmaster except for the magazine size. Both are semi-automatic high powered weapons. It's almost like saying we should outlaw red cars because people who drive red cars get more speeding tickets. The difference between "assault" style weapons and hunting weapons is mainly cosmetic...except for magazine size.

I know there is the argument about the magazine size but that simply makes those weapons the weapon of choice. If they were outlawed the nutcases intent on doing these kinds of things would simply choose a pump shotgun, or a hunting rifle with a smaller magazine size that was a still easily reloaded semi-automatic, or carry twosemi-automatic hunting rifles.

Gun control people might feel better with a ban but it won't stop anything. The problem is composed of many things like the violent culture of video games and some of the music our youth listens too and our insistence of mainstreaming mentally ill people.

One thing though. Everytime this discussion comes up we put more guns into homes than all of advertising the gun manufacturers and the NRA could ever possibly do.

So go ahead. Ban the red cars. But people will still speed.

Ben Franklin once wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Now, I realize the gun control advocates will say "There's no way he could have envisioned the powerful firearms we have today." But that isn't exactly the point. The point was that if WE THE PEOPLE sit back and allow the government to interpret the constitution and our rights, then there is no limit to what they can take from us. It's been proven in history, time and time again.

So, if the next mass shooting, is preformed using a high powered rifle, do they then say those type firearms are banned? As I stated earlier, I don't own an "Assault rifle" but I'm a hunter and do own 2 high powered "deer rifles" and a couple shotguns, along with several pistols. My rifles are a .30-06 and a .243 which as anyone who knows about guns realizes, these are capable of shooting extreme distances, even up to 1000 yards. Yes, not having a semi-automatic "assautl rifle" might slow down the killer, but that's all it would do. They would still be able to kill, in mass.

So, if the next mass shooting involves one of these type weapons, what stops the government from saying "These weapons are simply to powerful. There is no reason for a private citizen to possess a weapon that can shoot 500-1000 yards." What if the next few shootings involved semi-automatic pistols only. Pistols are extremely easy to conceal from view and could pose very great risk. Couldn't the government say "Pistols are too small and too easily concealed, for a person to carry into any mall, theatre or school. Handguns must therefore be banned because they are very dangerous" This could go on and on. As a law enforcement officer, I can tell you with confidence, when on traffic stops and working domestics, ect; we are FAR more concerned with the weapon we CAN'T see. A person trying to stick a RIFLE out the window to shoot me, is less likely to be successful than someone waiting on me with a pistol in there hand. A pistol can be held in their lap until I'm at the window, then I'm dead. The rifle is not so easily maneuvered and is more easily seen when being moved.

Ben Franklin might not have envisioned the weapons we would have today, but he was brilliant in envisioning an out of control government and what that would mean for the people. If you give them an inch, they will take 200 miles. If you give them an inch, there is absolutely no limit to how far they can go.

Also, couldn't a mad man wait until children have gathered in the playground and drive a truck over them, causing mass casualties? Automoblies have been used in such manor before. Couldn't they easily develop a homemade bomb, made of nothing but metal pipe and black powder? What about 100 pounds of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel? It might not take the entire building out, but it would kill anyone near it and placed correctly, would cause mass casualties.

The point is, if you give up ANY rights for temporary safety, then you deserve neither. Because that's exactly what it is, temporary safety. I wouldn't even call it "temporary" because it actually isn't safety at all, its a false FEELING that we are making ourselves more safe. Crazed individuals will create ways of causing death and chaos. If we were to ban EVERYTHING they could possibly use, then we are in deep trouble.

Despite increases in gun sales, gun crimes continued to decrease in the United States for the fourth straight year in 2010, according to the FBI.Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/gun-crime-continues-to-decrease-despit...

What do you use your assault weapons for? Hunting?Targets? These are the only two reasons I can think of for owning one. (Except they're cool and it makes you feel safe or something.)
I personally have never owned a gun but 99% of my friends do. I don't hunt or target shoot. They do. They also enjoy it so I can understand why you would too.
The difference is you and my friends are law abiding citizens. I guess my question is how do we keep these kinds of weapons out of the WRONG hands? I am not anti-gun at all. Like myfather15 and I were saying there is no way to insure that the only people who get their hands on these types of guns are people who obey the law.
Geeeeze I need more coffee. I don't know if this makes sense.

Good question Shrimp...how do you keep them out of the hands of criminals? Passing yet another law that they won't follow certainly isn't going to do it. Gun control is like solving drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to get cars.

we really do need to address the moral decay and the callous attitude we seem as a nation to have for life..more laws on guns will never address any part of the problem..we need to look at what our society has become..but until we do that obumlers or any other blue ribbion commission on gun violence is a waste of money...lawless criminals do not obey laws by definition why more laws??

faithson...."How about some arguments out there on 'need', not paranoid statements on losing liberty."

I know you won't agree with this but here is my rationale.

I NEED my AR-15 to protect myself, my family, and my property in case of another incident as the riot that broke out in Los Angeles years ago where innocent people were robbed, beaten, and murdered and property looted and when the same things happened after hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. There is always the possibility of domestic distrubances and natural disasters where "combat" style self defense may be required to defend against roving bands of thugs and looters and it's too late to go to the bazooka store after it breaks out. I do not intend to be standing here with a single shot hunting rifle when the domestic historically proven gangs of looters, beaters, and murderers come down the street. That's MY reason and I do not intend to give up my weapons OR high capacity magazines.

I know that won't satisfy the "banners" but I absolutely view self defense against ALL possibilities as a Constitutional right. Situations like Los Angeles and New Orleans have PROVEN that the police are absolutely useless for several days after the beginning of riots and natural disasters. It's on ME and I intend to have the tools to do the job.

good point. I am of a mind that you can do just that without assault rifles and large capacity clips. thanks for your comment

1. Shrimp and Myfather both hit on where the focus should be; on the CRIMINAL, not the gun.

2. How do we reduce criminal access to weapons while not impeding the law abiding citizen is the $64,000 question.

The only way I see to address that is to put some heavy duty penalties on illegal transactions and possession. I would not mind extending the concealed carry permit concept to an ownership permit if it was enforced and effective.(I don't care if the gumment knows I own firearms) Then you make it very painful for anyone possessing without a permit, or selling to someone who doesn't have a permit. Now, for you second amendmenters, I don't see this as an abridgment, just a verification process that someone meets all of the legal requirements.

If you catch a dealer selling trunkloads of weapons to be hauled back north, confiscate everything they own and send them to prison. If you catch someone with illegal possession, no mercy. Start at 5 years incarceration and go up from there. Commit a crime with a gun, no mercy. 25 years added to whatever sentence you have for the original crime.

In other words, make guns radioactive for illegal possession and use. That won't stop Columbine and Sandy Hook, but neither will this stupid focus on "assault" weapons.

I stopped by a local outdoor store yesterday, there were 5 lines 4 deep at the counter of people stocking up on ammo and firearms. I thought I was in Wacky Waynes on December 31st, for crying out loud.

I share Dichotomy's opinion. I own guns for their ability to help me defend life, liberty and property. I hope I never need them, but if I do, they are there. Just as I have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen and shop, although I hope to never have a fire, we must be prepared for the unthinkable.

Moreso in these times than ever in my history.

If only I could give all the comments above 1 million points (Except Two) and myfather15 - 2 million for pretty well covered it all, I would.

Why do I own 2 AR-15s and one AK-47 with many, many 30 round magazines for each plus thousands of rounds of ammo? Dichotomy 09:55am answered that question. Also own about every cal rifle there is (except a .50 cal) and hope before I go, I own one.

The second reason is I really enjoy shooting them on my own range just like I use to love playing golf.

I'm going to paste a little interesting factual Fact:

Interesting slant on things AMERICA'S HUNTERS ---
Pretty Amazing!

The world's largest army... America 's hunters!
I had never thought about this...

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a
handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin .. Allow me to restate that number: 600,000

Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran .

More than France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin , to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters,
all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the
hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states.
It's millions more.

The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that
kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting...
it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national
security.

That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic,
want to see us disarmed.

Overall it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters
don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question
would still remain... What army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens???

I FEEL GOOD THAT I HAVE AN ARMY OF MILLIONS WHO WOULD PROTECT OUR LAND AND I SURE DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TAKING CONTROL OF THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS.

For the sake of our freedom, don't ever allow gun control
or confiscation of guns.

There is NO evidence that any gun restrictions have saved anyone. The evidence says the more legal ownership of guns, the lower the crime rate. It may make you "feel" better to restrict guns but it would come under the category "do something even if it has no effect". The liberals have a utopian mentality which says , if you let me make the rules everything will be better".