All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons
1/15/2013 4:31 PM
I imagine someone could drive a car loaded with homemade explosives into Times Square and do a lot of damage.   Outlaw cars?
1/15/2013 5:02 PM
If you spent the time and money on planning to do that you could just as easily get yourself the automatic weapon.  But no psychotic guy in a suicidal fit would be able to do it spontaneously.
1/15/2013 5:03 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 1/15/2013 4:11:00 PM (view original):
If it's harder to get automatic weapons it's harder to get one and carry it into Times Square and open fire on the literally thousands of civilians milling around.  Any more stupid questions with blatantly obvious answers?
They are not obvious. The Gun Ban people want it to appear obvious. They want us to skip over the fact that we had a very oppressive AG ban and it didnt do anything.

The gun ban people want it both ways. They want you to belive that they want to ban a small amount of weapons and it will not impact most people and that it will have a big unfluence on crime.

So what is it.


1/15/2013 5:07 PM
The previous assault gun ban was ineffective because it didn't take any existing weapons out of circulation.  Only prevented the manufacturing, sales, and imports of new assault weapons.

A new ban should take existing weapons out of circulation if it wants to be more effective.
1/15/2013 5:26 PM
That was pretty much exactly what I was going to say.  The obvious problem is reimbursement.

I would hardly call the previous Assault Weapon ban "oppressive."

1/15/2013 7:50 PM
So you think that the Federal Government should, to use a recent catch phrase, Come for our guns?
1/15/2013 7:56 PM
Only the ones that Joe Citizen doesn't have a need to have.  You can keep the rest.
1/15/2013 8:02 PM
Fortunatly 99% of law abiding Americans will follow this law if it is passed.

Will of course give the White House to whatever Pub runs in 2016.

Wondering how many ATF agents will it take to get the "1 percents" guns?

And how much will this cost, as opposed to armed guards in schools?

We know Biden has the balls to try this, and Obama might have the balls, but the congress will not turn their backs on so many voters.
1/15/2013 8:05 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/15/2013 7:50:00 PM (view original):
So you think that the Federal Government should, to use a recent catch phrase, Come for our guns?
Yes.  And the idiots yelling and screaming on national television that there will be a revolution if the government comes for their guns are the LAST people I want owning weapons capable of killing lots of people quickly.
1/15/2013 8:47 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 1/15/2013 5:02:00 PM (view original):
If you spent the time and money on planning to do that you could just as easily get yourself the automatic weapon.  But no psychotic guy in a suicidal fit would be able to do it spontaneously.

Seems that most of these psychotics do extensive planning.

Seriously, this is stupid.   If you want to ban AW, don't use "He could shoot up Times Square" because I can counter with an equally effective way to kill loads of people "legally". 

Go with "No one needs an AW."    That's much harder to dispute.

1/15/2013 8:49 PM

FWIW, I'm highly against conviscation of guns newly deemed illegal.   That's big ******* gov't going too far.

1/15/2013 9:22 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/15/2013 8:49:00 PM (view original):

FWIW, I'm highly against conviscation of guns newly deemed illegal.   That's big ******* gov't going too far.

Well, that's why the previous assault weapon ban was ineffective.  

What's your alternative to get these out of the public space?
1/15/2013 10:35 PM
Frankly, the opinion of anyone who thinks the word "confiscation" has a v in it doesn't really matter that much to me.  People are acting like that would be a whole new type of government activity.  If the government forces people to sell them their assault weapons it's virtually the same as exercising the right of Eminent Domain on real estate.  There's mountains of precedent for that.  This thing is needed for government purposes, you can't have it anymore, but we will compensate you handsomely for it.  Been there, done that.
1/16/2013 6:37 AM
YE WANT TO PLAY WITH GUNS, JOIN THE MILITARY. OR THE POLICE FORCE.

TOUGH GUYS

1/16/2013 8:43 AM
Posted by dahsdebater on 1/15/2013 10:35:00 PM (view original):
Frankly, the opinion of anyone who thinks the word "confiscation" has a v in it doesn't really matter that much to me.  People are acting like that would be a whole new type of government activity.  If the government forces people to sell them their assault weapons it's virtually the same as exercising the right of Eminent Domain on real estate.  There's mountains of precedent for that.  This thing is needed for government purposes, you can't have it anymore, but we will compensate you handsomely for it.  Been there, done that.
I'm hurt that you don't value my opinion due a misspelled word. 

If you want every weapon currently in one's hands registered, fine, I'm good with that.   If you want to impose ridiculously long prison sentences for having an unregistered firearm, cool, I'm good with that also.   If you want government round-ups of specific firearms that are newly illegal, nope, not having it. 

Returning legally purchased firearms to the government has no precedent.    Anyone who thinks it does is blatantly stupid.
of 54
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.