Assault Weapon Ban POLL

First of all, "assault weapon" is is a term too loosely used in our society and usually includes semiauto rifles. What would be the definition of assault weapon? I heard a woman on TV say "Why does anyone need a semiautomatic weapon to hunt with?" I don't consider a hunting rifle to be a weapon, but a tool no matter what platform is used. Also, I am offended by the idea of some woman in NYC or Chicago telling me what I "need" to hunt with. If I lived in either of those places I would probably view guns as weapons too. Fortunately, I don't live in a crime-infested cesspool. No offense intended.

When will the anti-gun folks learn that guns are not the problem, but bad behavior, lack of responsibility and accountability of said behavior are? I fear gun control laws, like taxes and any other governmental control. Once the government seizes control it is nearly impossible to get it back.

Assault weapons bans would only affect law-abiding citizens and possibly turn some of them into criminals if they chose not to bow down to the government's heavy handedness.
 
When I voted it was at 63% for no AWB. I'm surprised coming from that website

It wasnt like that for quite a while. At one point it was heavily in favor of a ban...

First of all, "assault weapon" is is a term too loosely used in our society and usually includes semiauto rifles.

Members here on TFL understand the difference, while the general public have a general (if flawed) understanding of the concept. But that is really isnt the point. What the general public is focused on is the low hanging fruit like high-capacity AR15.
 
It seems to me that the term "tactical", when applied to gun furniture, turns the gun into an "assault" weapon, in the understanding of people unfamiliar with guns except as they see and hear about them in the news. I mean, one can take a nice, common Ruger 10/22 with a wood stock and open sights, and accessorize it with "tactical" parts: a pistol-grip collapsable composite stock, Picatinny rails with lasers, flashlights and even a bayonet, a 50 round magazine and voila! it's an "assault rifle". The difference? "tactical".
 
Gun are tools, dangerous tools. You can use them to hunt with, and defend yourself against 2 legged and 4 legged threats. Also have some fun shooting them. Guns have been a big part of United States. Without guns, how would of people have gotten food? Without guns, who would of won the Revolutionary War? WW1? WW2? None of this would of happened without guns. From saving your life to putting food on the table, guns play a big role in American's lives. Without guns, how would a law abiding citizen defend theirself against a non law abiding citizen. Just because criminals use our tools as weapons does not mean our tools should be taken away. And I do think the term assault weapon is used loosely. To me, that's a weapon used to assault someone. That could be anything from a pencil to a Navy battleship. And regardless what the object is, the instrument isn't at fault. It's the user.
 
Uncle Billy said:
It seems to me that the term "tactical", when applied to gun furniture, turns the gun into an "assault" weapon, in the understanding of people unfamiliar with guns except as they see and hear about them in the news. I mean, one can take a nice, common Ruger 10/22 with a wood stock and open sights, and accessorize it with "tactical" parts: a pistol-grip collapsable composite stock, Picatinny rails with lasers, flashlights and even a bayonet, a 50 round magazine and voila! it's an "assault rifle". The difference? "tactical".

Absolute truth!

There is a video (that I can never locate on demand, forgive the possible error of exact details), wherein an NRA guy is testifying before congress, I believe in the lead up to the original AWB. He shows to rifles to the committee and asks the one congressman which is the assault rifle. After the congressman answers, he proceeds to show that they are in fact the exact same firearm with different stocks, perhaps a couple other accessories.

I wish I could find the video.
 
I just voted on the politico poll.

Interesting, with 19455 votes to that point, the results were 64% opposed to an AWB, yet politico's editorial was about Obama's lack of aggressiveness in pushing new gun control laws being "baloney."

I guess politico's editorial board don't look at their own poll results...
 
And I do think the term assault weapon is used loosely. To me, that's a weapon used to assault someone. That could be anything from a pencil to a Navy battleship.


So if a bad guy assaults some one with a rifle, wouldn't that be your definition of an assault rifle? That would make it assault pencil, assault knife, assault fists, etc. So your definition would be using the term loosely.
 
Every one of these polls is important...and the more anti the source, the more important the poll.
I've never known a poll on a website to have made a difference in the real world. If it's a huge issue, consider asking to write a rebuttal to their site.

FWIW, Politico is fairly balanced.
 
What the general public is focused on is the low hanging fruit like high-capacity AR15.
High Capacity??? I keep seeing reports of unlimited capacity. :eek: I keep asking where I can find one of those but no answer yet. I also asked one guy (very negative posts) if his car had an unlimited gas tank in it. No answer on that one either. :rolleyes:
 
Rebs,
Voting is now closed. You need to go to their "Poll Archives" to see the results. 64% oppose AWB - 36% Support AWB ~ 20,000 responses
 
First of all, "assault weapon" is is a term too loosely used in our society and usually includes semiauto rifles.

Yep, my local news station reported about a robbery using an Uzi assault rifle.

I made a post about it, and the moderator missed my point, and he closed the thread as a drive by, later to admit he missed my point about them calling it a assault rifle. Closed is close, and he couldn't re open it.

See, it even happens here.
 
Back
Top