Seriously anti-gun crowd, you're making yourself look idiotic. An "assault rifle" is a full automatic, one where you just hold the trigger and burst multiple rounds. A semi-automatic WHICH IS NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE is one where you have to pull the trigger each time.

I have noticed a subtle trend in MSMBS reporting. They are now referring to the wanting-to-ban list any semi-auto.

They have already indoctrinated the idiot that anything that looks like an m-16 is a semi-auto.

Hey idiots out there. Semi-auto includes itty-bitty pistols like the .32 cal. Some fit in the palm of a hand.

Towards the end of WWII the Germans came up with something they called an assault rifle. It shot an intermediate cartridge not a full sized rifle round,or a carbine round, or a pistol round like an SMG. It had
a pistol grip, was clip fed, and could fire full or semi auto.
The Russians stole the idea and came up with the Ak47.
The M16, a similar design, that is, pistol grip, full and semi auto, and intermediate size cartridge came along in the early sixties.

Since then any rifle of similar design, that is, pistol grip, smaller
round size, large clip magazine capability, etc. has been called an
assault STYLE rifle, whether it fires full auto or not.
Of course our ever accurate news media and public speech-makers have
shorted this to just "assault rifle". Get over it. We all know what they are talking about.

Yeah, ANYTHING YOU CAN SHOOT BACK WITH...

We "all" know what they are talking about? lol Evidently not when the media calls a deer rifles an assault rifle. They just want to hang the word "assault" on every firearm. Next they'll be calling single shot 4-10's assault shotguns. A lot of people are dumbed-down and believe whatever the media tells them to, like good sheep.

as a brit this whole thing makes me laugh.

it seems the us has a problem with mental cases getting a gun and killing innocent groups of unsuspecting people.

none of you want to relinquish your guns because its your god given right to have protection against these mental murderers who pose a threat because they have guns.

so the argument against removeing guns from the us is that you need them to protect yourselves, against people who have guns!

obviously you cant irradicate the threat by "removing" the mental cases, as its very hard to know who is a mental gun slinging muderer and who is just from the south.

maybe you should give guns to kids so they can also protect themselves.

and the anti gun crowd making themselves look stupid by using the wrong names for guns?. yep, dem da stoopid ones.

guns dont kill people, people who want to kill people... kill people.

you cant remove the insane and angry. but you could make weapons harder to get hold of.

Gee, common sense from the Brits. Who da thunk it?

Not even close. Self-defense is only a small part of the usefulness of the right to own arms. The real purpose of this right is to give regular people the means to keep government in check and repel foreign invasions. (the imperial Japanese never invaded the mainland US because they knew there was a "rifle behind every blade of grass") The musket was the assault rifle of the 18th century. Even a simple farmer armed with one or more could protect himself from harassment or assault at the hands of the regime.

Say you did take everyone's guns. Now they're sitting ducks for criminals. (real criminals don't care about the law and will get guns if they want them)

Since you're a Brit, you ought to familiarize yourself with your countryman George Orwell. Especially 1984. Britain and the US resemble the world of 1984 more and more by the day.

One of my favorite Orwell quotes-"if you want a vision of the future, imagine a jackboot stamping on a human face-forever".

Maybe you enjoy your police/nanny state, but I don't care for it.

The fallacy here is the belief that we can remove guns from the criminals and mentally deranged. It has never worked for us in the past, and will most likely not work for us in the future. (Ex. #1 Clinton's era "assault weapons ban" had no impact on our country's gun violence, nor did the expiration of said ban. In fact the Columbine school shootings occur right in the middle of it.)

The only thing that would be accomplished is the removal of a very important balance in our system of checks and balances. One unique to our country and its founding principles.

Therefore, it is illogical and irresponsible to attempt the further limitation of any firearm and/or magazine currently available. As a matter of fact if the politicians truly cared for its people (instead of just trying to win votes) we would have a strong focus on mental health care as well as awareness campaigns instead of following this stupid debate which is costing us time, money, and dwindling the public's faith in our current government.

Oh yeah, another random fact. There is a direct correlation between the economy and violent crime. Yet, we seem to be pushing the debate on economics aside. Interesting, is it not?

I can see where, at first glance, one can hypothesize that gun control can curb gun violence. This, however is a knee-jerk reaction. These only get people in trouble and its also responsible for dwindling rights of the body public, leaving them less and less powerful every day. Yet many of the same people talk about how socialism is a good idea... Contradicting, yes?

You live in the past. Japan did not have nukes.

A couple nuke EMP's in our upper atmosphere over the US would throw us back to the stone age.

Won't take much to take us down....look at what a few idiots flying jets did to our economy.....what did that cost us in blood and treasure.

Wake up.

Where were nukes mentioned? Besides, an "assault" rifle with a 30 round mag is far from having nukes. Not to mention only responsible for a very small amount of gun related deaths, and many of them were accomplished with black-market purchases.

So why ban them?

Where do you see anyone claiming Japan had nukes????

You're right nukes were not mentioned. But, he did state that the reason Japan did not invade us was because of our small arms possession.

Does this still hold true today? Do you seriously think that the right to bear arms would keep some idiot maniac leader in North Korea from attacking us with a nuke? Or China? Or Russia?

Banning guns only makes it easier for criminals and terrorists. where it said on the news that there had been 600 deaths in america due to gun violence since the start of the year was one big mother ****ing lie lol. If you want to ban guns, then ban knives(higher statistic of deaths caused by knives). Ban baseball bats and crowbars, lots of attacks from them.
lol and the funny part is that alot the anti-gun people i know say us PSC/PMC/ARMY/Civilian Gun owners, should all die because we use guns lol
Have to Admit, I'll gladly go back to using swords lol

It would be a deterrent, for an all out occupation (meaning it would be nearly impossible to actually take us over without an indefinite insurgent activity). The likelihood of said occupation would be very, very minuscule as a result of our nuclear weapons, so on that point we would agree completely.

In fact, the ownership of nukes would prevent nearly any full scale invasion for any country. Hostile take-overs today would be done by other means; either economic, or the takeover of political influence, etc. This brings us to an entirely different scenario.

#1. Economic takeover could leave a country broke, diminished welfare and social services leaving the public to fend for themselves for food, shelter, protection, etc. There public ownership of weapons would help with independence by the balance power.

#2. Political influence would obviously involve corruption of a system and manipulating policies toward the benefit of said nation. People can only be taken advantage of for so long before becoming angered. With a well armed populace you would have to keep things much more subtle as political powers could potentially be overthrown and even local police forces rendered useless when enough citizens revolt.

The above ties into the primary reason for not infringing on our second amendment. When a government becomes too corrupt, and i mean to the point of those speaking out suddenly disappearing and citizens on large scales being detained (in camps and such). In this case citizens can stop abductions (or at least have a chance to), and overthrow efforts to imprison towns/cities, etc.

Now, the government's weapons are much bigger, and more powerful, but the use of said weapons (for instance dropping a nuke on a revolting city), or large scale use of bombs/drones/etc. would be VERY tough to keep under wraps from other citizens, other countries, and even our military, causing many, if not most, of them to turn their backs on the powers that be saying "that's just F-ed up". Which would combine with the likelihood that some countries will come to our aid at that point.

Again assault weapons would only aid such an effort on the above scenario, but remember, the government can be corrupted by any force, not just foreign military. Corporations, for example, banks have a HUGE influence on our government and its policies. Regardless of the force performing the takeover the result is ultimately the same... People will be taken advantage of progressively until it becomes enslavement. But people usually break, and get very angry before this occurs. The 2nd amendment ensures they have the power to direct that anger toward the enemy trying to enslave them.

That being said. The department of justice statistics and FBI records show that gun control has no impact on gun-related crime. This stands true for the Clinton era assault weapons bans, as well as on gun laws/revocation of said laws on major U.S. cities. This leads to me ask the very important question; "Why are they still trying to pass new restrictions?"

Apologies for the long-winded response.

On a side note:

Goodnight my bothers and sisters for now

Blah, blah, blah.......you never addressed my point.

Ok, perhaps i got sidetracked. No, the right to bear arms for citizens would not prevent someone from dropping a nuke on us.

The U.S. having nukes on the other hand would (as mentioned above).

And the aftermath of such an event, were it to happen, would tie in with the "economic takeover" portion of my previous statement.

What the English don't want to understand is it is a matter of Deterrent Force A.K.A. Peace through superior fire power.

Watch Dr. Strangelove some time. The thing is I love it when English rationalize gun control considering what a crime ridden pit England has become lately. And to boot England has given Criminal Rights an all time new low. Where else does a nation take making a victim a criminal to new heights? On top of that us making a 50BMG sniper rifle was not enough. England makes a 20mm sniper rifle. It is twice the size of our LARGEST sniper rifle. Likewise where else other than England can a criminal rob a person at gun point but when someone shoots that armed criminal his gun is forgotten and the citizen is now a murderer! I seriously DON'T believe England or English people really get the gun ownership issue here in America. Likewise I am sure England does not get the fact the Medical industry is as much a part of the problem as human nature is. What do you get when you take a deranged person and feed them drugs? A much more serious problem! All our health care and mental health here in America is about is what pills you can toss at a person. Not real treatment!

I don't mind outside observation but keep it as such if you are not an American. Like I cannot lobby in England to do away with the Royal Family completely don't talk crap about our constitution. I hope Piers Morgan gets his azz handed to him publicly and shipped back to England where you can deal with your own criminals!!!

Indeed, i agree. It is difficult for other countries that run on different principles to understand why we have our principles. Its sort of a discrimination via ignorance (which i guess means all discrimination). But unlike other prejudgments, people are taught to fear firearms in general and prejudge the owners. It's just another knee-jerk reaction.