Would You Support an Assault Weapons Ban?

[CowboyT]

Two questions:

1. If a bi-partisan bill came across a President Romney's desk that banned assault weapons but also granted some other undisclosed gun rights, do you think he would sign it?

Yes, I believe he would. He's shown for years that he's not against the idea, any more than GW Bush was.

2. As an average American, would you be willing to give up assault weapons to gain some other rights? What what those be?

First, we need to define "assault weapons". As I understand it, an "assault weapon" is a light, fully-automatic rifle that shoots an intermediate-power cartridge. Those are already effectively banned for anybody but rich people, thanks to that rotten combination of Reps. Hughes and Rangel.

If we're talking about a Feinstein-style ban against semi-auto rifles with certain cosmetic features, I'd say, NOPE. A right is a right, and we don't give up rights. We ensure their perpetuation. The very notion of "trading rights" may be valid in certain European countries or China, but it is ludicrous in the United States of America. Indeed, I'd counter to anybody actually suggesting such a thing that first we need to repeal the Hughes Amendment to the '86 FOPA, then the GCA of 1968. Finally, once the streets have not "run rivers of blood" like the antis will surely whine...then we go after the NFA of 1934 and restore our 2A rights to how they ought to be...like they were, within my Dad's lifetime, and he's still around.

[gunderwood]

Two questions:

1. If a bi-partisan bill came across a President Romney's desk that banned assault weapons but also granted some other undisclosed gun rights, do you think he would sign it?

Yes, I believe he would. He's shown for years that he's not against the idea, any more than GW Bush was.

2. As an average American, would you be willing to give up assault weapons to gain some other rights? What what those be?

First, we need to define "assault weapons". As I understand it, an "assault weapon" is a light, fully-automatic rifle that shoots an intermediate-power cartridge. Those are already effectively banned for anybody but rich people, thanks to that rotten combination of Reps. Hughes and Rangel.

If we're talking about a Feinstein-style ban against semi-auto rifles with certain cosmetic features, I'd say, NOPE. A right is a right, and we don't give up rights. We ensure their perpetuation. The very notion of "trading rights" may be valid in certain European countries or China, but it is ludicrous in the United States of America. Indeed, I'd counter to anybody actually suggesting such a thing that first we need to repeal the Hughes Amendment to the '86 FOPA, then the GCA of 1968. Finally, once the streets have not "run rivers of blood" like the antis will surely whine...then we go after the NFA of 1934 and restore our 2A rights to how they ought to be...like they were, within my Dad's lifetime, and he's still around.

+1

[dragonzfury050]

Two questions:

1. If a bi-partisan bill came across a President Romney's desk that banned assault weapons but also granted some other undisclosed gun rights, do you think he would sign it?

Yes, I believe he would. He's shown for years that he's not against the idea, any more than GW Bush was.

2. As an average American, would you be willing to give up assault weapons to gain some other rights? What what those be?

First, we need to define "assault weapons". As I understand it, an "assault weapon" is a light, fully-automatic rifle that shoots an intermediate-power cartridge. Those are already effectively banned for anybody but rich people, thanks to that rotten combination of Reps. Hughes and Rangel.

If we're talking about a Feinstein-style ban against semi-auto rifles with certain cosmetic features, I'd say, NOPE. A right is a right, and we don't give up rights. We ensure their perpetuation. The very notion of "trading rights" may be valid in certain European countries or China, but it is ludicrous in the United States of America. Indeed, I'd counter to anybody actually suggesting such a thing that first we need to repeal the Hughes Amendment to the '86 FOPA, then the GCA of 1968. Finally, once the streets have not "run rivers of blood" like the antis will surely whine...then we go after the NFA of 1934 and restore our 2A rights to how they ought to be...like they were, within my Dad's lifetime, and he's still around.

preach it brother!

[Alex]

Why would I trade rights I DO have, for rights we SHOULD have?

[Taggure]

Two questions:

1. If a bi-partisan bill came across a President Romney's desk that banned assault weapons but also granted some other undisclosed gun rights, do you think he would sign it?

Yes, I believe he would. He's shown for years that he's not against the idea, any more than GW Bush was.

2. As an average American, would you be willing to give up assault weapons to gain some other rights? What what those be?

First, we need to define "assault weapons". As I understand it, an "assault weapon" is a light, fully-automatic rifle that shoots an intermediate-power cartridge. Those are already effectively banned for anybody but rich people, thanks to that rotten combination of Reps. Hughes and Rangel.

If we're talking about a Feinstein-style ban against semi-auto rifles with certain cosmetic features, I'd say, NOPE. A right is a right, and we don't give up rights. We ensure their perpetuation. The very notion of "trading rights" may be valid in certain European countries or China, but it is ludicrous in the United States of America. Indeed, I'd counter to anybody actually suggesting such a thing that first we need to repeal the Hughes Amendment to the '86 FOPA, then the GCA of 1968. Finally, once the streets have not "run rivers of blood" like the antis will surely whine...then we go after the NFA of 1934 and restore our 2A rights to how they ought to be...like they were, within my Dad's lifetime, and he's still around.

Got to agree with you Cowboy I could not have said it better if I tried

[Mindflayer]

Hell no.

I tell you what - I will accept restrictions on our 2A rights based on cosmetics if we change the 1st Amendment to say that Congress, SCOTUS, and POTUS, along with any mayor, sheriff, and governor, must get a 100% approval rating to say anything publicly, send an email, or put anything in our mailboxes, infringing on their 1A rights.