Would you support a proposed constitutional amendment to ban the sale of assault weapons?

  • Chris - 3 years ago

    To bad these kids can't understand it's not the guns that are the problem the problem is them, with their bullying kids in school and not saying anything or doing anything about it when they see it, maybe they should start a little council in the schools and realise that's where they need to make a change, most of them wouldn't say shit even if they had a mouth full of it, instead, since they can't think for themselves, they let other people influence their thoughts and believe guns are bad, I'm sorry but take some responsibility for yourself for once in your life you entitled little shit

  • ROGER - 3 years ago

    Terry Moore if you don't like the 2nd amendment then please get the out fuck of my country.

  • Terry Moore - 3 years ago

    Going to little boys on here like to play with their guns get a life automatic weapons were not around when the 2nd Amendment was written this is asking for a Constitutional Amendment which would have to be voted on you people don't know the difference bunch of little dicks

  • Chuck - 3 years ago

    Sorry, 2A does not read "Shall not be infringed, except when arms are used in a tragedy" It reads "Shall not be infinged" period.

  • Rick - 3 years ago

    The firearm in that picture is not an AR-15. I don't recognize the exact model but that weapon has selective fire with semi, auto and safe positions. An AR-15 with only have semi and safe. Banning semi-automatic weapons is not the answer to this problem and it won't stop the gun violence. Estimates say there are around 300 million firearms in the US but those estimates probably fall far short of the truth because many Firearms were purchased before any kind of background checks were required. Banning semi-automatic weapons is not going to take all those Firearms off the street. The problem must be solved with better security in our schools it's what we do it every other venue that has security issues we put Security in like Banks corporate offices. Why do we treat our children differently is it too expensive to hire a few security guards and force all the kids to walk in through a metal detector.

  • Troy - 3 years ago

    No, but I would support a Constitutional Amendment to ban Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Communism, Marxism, Nazism, and Theocracies.

  • A - 3 years ago

    By "assault weapon" I assume you mean ar15 in which case no I don't approve. I don't approve of the second amendment being infringes upon at all

  • Al - 3 years ago

    A ban of rifles is not the answer to solving the problem regarding protecting our children. Investing more into truly identifying the real problems and implementing measure that does not infringe upon our 2nd Amendment right (not privilege) would be best. More security, metal detectors, guidance counselors who actually care about the children, etc., might go a long way into helping curve the issue of school gun violence. One more thing that needs to be addressed is the root of these children’s issues, which seems to start in the home. Banning black rifles WILL NOT change the way these children are feeling and may lead to an even more damaging form of “acting out” than a rifle can ever do. If that horrible event ever took place, where then will people place their blame? The internet? The parents? Society? The media? Plain and simple bad people wanting to do bad things will not be stopped by amending our inalienable right. It will only prohibit law abiding citizens from exercising our right and freedom to do so. Sick and disturbed people wanting to commit criminal acts of any form will not be stopped by laws.

  • Rick - 3 years ago

    To begin with there is no such thing as an assault weapon readily available to the general public. The term "Assault Weapon" is a left wing term designed to ban a SEMI-automatic rifle patterned after the M-16/M-4 military combat rifle commonly used by the U.S. armed forces. Also, the AR in AR-15 does NOT stand for "Assault Rifle 15" or "Automatic Rifle 15". It's a branding code for the company who originally designed the rifle, Armalite.

  • G M - 3 years ago

    liberty or death motherfuckersssss

  • Theron Roberts - 3 years ago

    To begin keeping our children safe from these Mass shootings. We must come to the realization that schools need to be supplied with enough money to secure there access. Starting with armed Patrol officers at the entrance is. Reinforced door ways with bulletproof glass at all entrances. And walk through metal detectors. At every school.

  • Imanukfila Nuseka - 3 years ago

    Democratic-Socialist Acts are coping ol' Adolf Hitler's history...

  • Dalton S. - 3 years ago

    The United States is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. As such, "rights" are not negotiable, or subject to the whim of the majority (aka "tyranny of the majority"). The second we start making laws to strip RIGHTS from people because the majority wants them gone is the very same second we decide slavery can be reintroduced if the majority thinks it is ok to do so- for the same reasoning that makes slavery 100% wrong 100% of the time (that rights are inalienable) is the same reasoning that protects all other rights, up to and including the right to bear arms.

  • Reggy - 3 years ago

    The Constitution was put in place and written for the public safety and to keep us also safe from our government... If the gun control laws that are already in place or not enforced why make more laws??? that are only going to take our rights away... Look at what Hitler did to Germany look what happened to China and other surrounding countries when they took the guns away they Enslaved the people, they beat on them, tortured them, shot them as they seen fit...

  • Chapa - 3 years ago

    I do not support any kind of anti firearm legislation much less the banning of any kind of firearm or firearm magazines. I support swift and harsh punishment for murder to include mandatory death penalty for those guilty of school killings or any mass killing.

  • Roger R - 3 years ago

    Your ignorance is on full display as you caption a picture "An AR-15 weapon" when it clearly has a select-fire option for "AUTO," a feature not available on AR-15s.

  • James - 3 years ago

    Getting 3/4 of the states to support the Liberals agenda is impossible.
    Banning scary devices is silly and stupid. A fear of an inanimate object is a mental disorder. The person behind the object is the issue.
    If we want to have some amendments passed, let's try some real ones.
    Term limits on congress.
    Balances Budgets Zero Base Busgets
    Budget requirements and no more continuing resolutions.
    See there are important issues!

  • Raul - 3 years ago

    Removing guns from law abiding citizens is pointless. Cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates like Chicago. Legislators like Kevin deLeon who is clueless about firearms should be banned from gun legislation. Assault rifiles is a liberal anti gun invented term. There is no such thing.

  • Sara - 3 years ago

    More sweeping restrictions also earn overwhelming support. Seventy percent of voters support a ban on high-capacity magazines, and 68 percent want to ban assault-style weapons. Three in five want to ban firearms from schools and college campuses across the country.

  • Sara - 3 years ago

    Mental illness is a red herring. Gun legislation has proven effevtive in country after country. Now america is numver one in preventable gun violence all because a large portion of our population would rather dig in than consider new information. Being stuborn can be a good thing, but not when it comes to chosing guns over safety.

    Also this poll obviously isnt scientific; aver half of americans support sensible arms regulation which in the case of nukes, spring loaded blades and yes, most of the guns yall have been brainwashed to have hardons for, means banned.

  • Mike M - 3 years ago

    Ban mental illness, ban non secure schools and public places. Every cop shop in the country has half a staff that could work schools. 8-3 is 7 hours, Cops work 12 hour shifts. Do the math. Secure our public places now.

  • Nedra - 3 years ago

    Tell me this isn't a clickbait poll. For what it's worth I need whatever it takes to protect my family. Which to me means I need an AR or AK. Sometimes pistols aren't enough. Especially if you live in aces like CA or NY.

  • Marko - 3 years ago

    We need to support sensible gun regulation. The founders didn't intend for civilians to have nuclear weapons or these either, so don't give me any 2nd Amendment malarkey. Certain weapons are designed to kill more humans more efficiently. Hunt with something else. Protect your home with something else. Children's lives are more important than your hobby.

    Let each state decide.

    A ban on AR-15's would not have prevented this tragedy but it would have limited the scale. To lose one students life in school shooting is a tragedy. By banning AR-15's instead of 17 students dead fewer would have died if the shooter had used a handgun.

  • Louis Bensinger - 3 years ago

    Ban Sheriff Israel and the rest of the cowards who stood outside and did nothing ban former President Obama's policies that allowed this tragedy to happen

  • Nunya - 3 years ago

    Assault rifles like the full auto M4 you disingenuously pictures in your article are already heavily regulated, requiring expensive tax stamps and extensive background checks.

    The AR-15 is a semi automatic .223/5.56 rifle with a magazine capacity of 30 rounds.

    The Ruger Mini 14 is a semi automatic .223/5.56 rifle with a magazine capacity of 30 rounds.

    The AR-15 is falsely called an assault WEAPON because it is not an assault rifle but it is black and scary looking.

  • Nick V - 3 years ago

    Instead of discussing a van on weapons, why aren't we discussing how we should be better equipped to protect ourselves and our families. Why do those who are for the banning of any type of weapon, cheer on those who have armed security 24/7, but don't care about their children's safety in the same way? Why do they cheer on celebrities who are guarded by armed security, but don't think their children deserve to be protected? Even the major awards shows have armed security guarding the envelopes, but those who want a van done think our children are worth the same type of protection.

    They argue that the founding fathers didn't mean for us to have military style weapons, but I disagree...

    1. Every weapon that existed when the Second Amendment was written, was a military weapon
    2. The Second Amendment doesn't stipulate the types of weapons we can, or cannot have.

    Thank you

  • Ken - 3 years ago

    "assault weapons" and "assault style rifles" etc. are made up terms to scare people that don't know anything about guns. The only difference between a fine and dandy Mini 14 and an AR15 is that one's black and has rails. End this stupid argument, the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

  • Chris - 3 years ago

    If you gun grabbers want mine then you're going to need your own to try to take them. Good luck with that.

  • Lamont Cantrell - 3 years ago

    Assault is a verb. All things from a trash bag to the saliva in your mouth can be an assault weapon. When will all the people that advocated for disarming everyone first disarm themselves. I have always learned from my grandfather growing up in the south during JIM CROW, that a man can't be just about words but also his actions have to play a part. " No man, woman, and definitely child can best tell me how to protect my life", if they are so quick to pass blame. If by chance the people that we call government took responsible for the death of my fellow military men and women. Or the times when LAW ENFORCEMENT has killed under the guise of issuing a none violent warrant for a speeding ticket. Or a judge that has issued ORDERS for a humans life to be taken under the gesture of justice. So see all these a weapons of ASSAULT. This is why the notion the men hundreds of years ago spoke English and not legalese, the words are clear. A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Normal english at its best, clear and not for interpretation under legalese.

  • Kay Scarborough - 3 years ago

    I'm glad you responded. Weren't they all assault weapons, though? First, let me say that my dad taught me to shoot his handgun when I was 16 years old for target shooting and self-defense. We would go in our backwoods and target shooting. It was then that we discovered that I had inherited my dad's perfect eye-hand coordination. My brother always kept rifles in the house when we were growing up. My uncle in Savannah used to hunt with all of his hunting dogs for quail, dove, deer, etc. I own a handgun for self-protection. These are all good reasons to own guns and rifles. Please tell me, though, what practical or sporting purpose in our everyday lives does an assault weapon serve? They belong nowhere but in the military where it is necessary to gun down hundreds of people in less than a minute. These should be manufactured and distributed by military and for military use ONLY. They serve no purpose in society.

  • Kay Scarborough - 3 years ago

    I understand what you're saying, but personally I don't want to start carrying an assault weapon to church with me and everywhere I go for self-defense. If we begin to ban the manufacture and sale of these weapons in the civilian world eventually mass shootings will decrease. There will probably be some, but at least we can deter the madness, the all-out chaos in this country. When the Constitution was written that tyrannous country was Great Britain. Has it come to us defending ourselves against each other? This isn't the government doing this to us. These are U.S. citizens terrorizing others, and it is the government's duty to protect all citizens from the horrific terrorism that is becoming so commonplace in this country. I'm normally against the government interfering, but this insanity warrants interference.

  • Kay Scarborough - 3 years ago

    I understand what you're saying, but personally I don't want to start carrying an assault weapon to church with me and everywhere I go for self-defense. If we begin to ban the manufacture and sale of these weapons in the civilian world eventually mass shootings will decrease. There will probably be some, but at least we can deter the madness, the all-out chaos in this country. When the Constitution was written that tyrannous country was Great Britain. Has it come to us defending ourselves against each other? This isn't the government doing this to us. These are U.S. citizens terrorizing others, and it is the government's duty to protect all citizens from the horrific terrorism that is becoming so commonplace in this country. I'm normally against the government interfering, but this insanity warrants interference.

  • Steve B - 3 years ago

    Nice. The description of semi-auto carbines as weapons that can "effectively cut people in half" and "kill masses of people in less than a minute" has zero basis in fact. It is hyperbole that is calculated to appeal to emotion, rather than a critical analysis of the facts with logic and reason, which history demonstrates is a far greater danger to a just and civil society.

    The icing on your cake is the parenthetical ad-hominem attack implying those with a different interpretation of the 2A wish to commit acts of violence.

  • Owen M. - 3 years ago

    Would I support banning assault rifles? No, because automatic weapons have been banned since 1934 because the Mafia stole them from US military armories and killed innocent people with them because of the failed 18th amendment known as prohibition.

    Actual assault rifles haven't been a thing for civilians since 1986 when they were banned from ownership nearly entirely. "Assault rifle" refers to a mid-caliber fully automatic rifle used by military and paramilitary groups. An AR-10/15 isn't an assault rifle, nor is it an assault weapon.

    This is a war of words designed to conjure up a killing machine when it's anything but. The AR-15 is a range rifle, it was when Armalite couldn't pitch the AR-10 to the military. The .308 was downscaled to support the popular Remmington .222 round used for target practice to sell the modified design to someone to recoup loses.

    The only reason why they're so cheap and used so much is because at the first usage of one in a crime the news media blamed it rather than the mother that didn't report her sick child and didn't secure her firearms. It's polls like this that sell the ARs after every tragedy. Congratulations, you're a part of the problem you think there is.

  • Uncle Bozzin - 3 years ago

    You cannot pick what in the Constitution to obey or not.
    You -can- choose to not have a weapon (the 2nd Amendment is not limited to firearms only; you can bear swords, cannons, tanks, planes, bows & arrows, etc) in your possession but your Rights end where mine begin.

    It is all of the Constitution or none of the Constitution. Because without the 2nd Amendment, we will lose the other Amendments.

  • Eric - 3 years ago

    This country was born by the gun, sustained by the gun, and will always be secured by the gun.
    The 2nd amendment wasn't written because the deer were coming. The British were coming. It guaranteed the right of the people "us" to stand against our own government if it ever overstepped it's boundaries. As time has changed so has the government's weapons. And so should our weapons, to match the firepower of the government. We wouldn't stand a chance with a single shot rifle. Ever watched Red Dawn? That's why we need weapons. It was tragic what happened in Florida, but evil will always find a way. So taking ANY gun from law abiding citizens will not solve one damn thing. We wiould be sheep and evil people and OR the government, foreign or domestoc, would have easy prey. At the battle of Thermopylae, king Xerxes I requested that king Leonidus I and the Spartans of Greece surrender their weapons. He kindly replied COME AND TAKE THEM! So...i will stand by that. Nobody is taking my weapons!

  • michael W daniel - 3 years ago

    When it was written everybody hunted. It was normal every day life to hunt for your food. The reason we have the 2nd is to protect us from our goverment. It's that simple, that right shall not be infringed for a reason.

  • Mike - 3 years ago

    Millions die of Obesity every year. Let me cut my Spoon in half "for the children". #NOSPOONS

    That is about as idiotic as a gun debate. "The NRA has blood on it's hands"
    NO NRA Member has EVER shot up a school ever yet you want to take away law abiding citizens right to defend themselves and their families. Good luck rounding up the guns. The British tried that and it didn't end well.

  • Capt Tom - 3 years ago

    Danielle, Really? When the 2nd Amendment was written civilians had the Kentucky long rifle which was superior to the smooth bore muskets of the British military. They also had cannons and warships in private ownership. You might want to Bone up on a little history before you make yourself sound foolish again. Do you really think that the First Amendment doesn't apply to electronic speech, to the telephone, the TV, to radio or the internet?

  • GK - 3 years ago

    If the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets, then the first only applies to your unassisted voice, quill and parchment and typeset presses.

  • Mike J. - 3 years ago

    1. Kind of hard to ban something that does not exist.
    2. “Shall not be infringed “is about as clear as it gets.

  • Boe Jangles - 3 years ago

    is there any other fundamental rights we can vote away with a majority?

  • JonhH - 3 years ago

    Daniel that is plain ignorant. The 2nd Amendment was not created to protect hunters rights, or even sportsmen rights. It was created to protect We the people from oppressive over-reaching government. Now tell me how in any context that would be construed as limiting "we the people" to single shot fire arms against military grade equipment? The words are clear - Shall not be infringed. And we have been allowing entirely too much infringement for the false since of security it may momentarily provide to a few. Limiting the number, possession, or type of fire arms available to law abiding citizens wont do a damn thing to keep the nut jobs and people intent on breaking the law from getting them.

    Molon Labe

  • Roger Wallace - 3 years ago

    Before I vote in this poll, can you please define what an assault weapon is?

  • Danielle - 3 years ago

    The constitutional rights being considered originally involved preserving the ownership of primitive single-shot weapons...not guns that can effectively cut a person in half and end masses of lives in less than a minute. Have your guns...be they not assault-type (what are you planning to assault with all of that bullet power anyway?)

  • Your wifes side piece - 3 years ago

    MOLON LABE you commie shitheads!

  • Steve Rogers - 3 years ago

    Of course not. The 2nd amendment was based on English Common Law, the idea of which that every man should have the standard military small arm in their home. If we're making amendments to amendments I think we should make it very clear that owning an AR-15 and at least 10 loaded 30rd magazines (or whatever weapons we have in the future) is not only allowed but mandatory.

  • JD - 3 years ago

    The British tried to confiscate our guns once.
    We SHOT them.

  • Speedy P - 3 years ago

    Any attempt to take our guns will be met with death. 1776

  • Richard Rowland - 3 years ago

    I assume your talking about the black guns that are scary because they are black. Listen the 2nd Amendment is to protect my community and myself from the overlords like yourself and the tyrannical government that supports your stupid ass agenda. Go to some other country that supports your agenda.

  • Don - 3 years ago

    I assume you’re talking about the big scary black guns because I have no idea what an assault weapon is. It’s a fictional term made up by the biased media.

  • Sally - 3 years ago

    I will vote against anyone who supports such a stupid idea. I will contribute to their opponents. I will campaign for their opponents. I will make fried chicken and lemonaide for their opponents' volunteers. Support the law abiding, not the criminal special interests.

  • Keith Glass - 3 years ago

    A gun is just a tool, and like any tool, it can be used for good or evil. Take a sharp knife: in the hands of a thug, it's a tool of fear and pain, yet in the hands of a surgeon, it's a tool of healing.

    The difference is the wielder of the tool. Without a dangerous person, a gun is just a chunk of machined metal: it takes a person willing to kill to wield it.

    Control dangerous people: Lord knows, the Parkland shooter (I will NOT speak his name) was giving clear signs for years prior. . .

  • Wally - 3 years ago

    Now we will see how much of a hack TCpalm might be if they decide not to report the results based on the outcome not being favorable to their agenda

  • Lady Liberty - 3 years ago

    Just because you don't support my rights doesn't give you a right to steal them from me.

  • Mark - 3 years ago

    Pure silliness. Parts of Great Britain are looking to ban knives now. It isn't guns, it's dangerous people. Good luck with a 'dangerous person' ban.

  • Ron Comp - 3 years ago

    94% against. I wonder how long before this poll disappears because it doesn’t support the agenda....

  • Mike - 3 years ago

    Every firearm can be used as an assault weapon, the same with knives, automobiles and a list of other items if a person chooses too. So NO, this proposal should not be supported!

  • Jason J - 3 years ago

    The second amendment clearly states “shall not be infringed”.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars

Submit Comment