Would you support an assault rifle ban, or ban on high capacity magazine clips?

Both. Both assault weapons and high capacity magazine clips have much greater potential for harm than benefit for lawful, responsible people. Civilian gun owners do not need assault rifles or high capacity magazine clips and typically lack the training to use them responsibly.

Basically, I support the ban of assault rifles and high capacity magazine clips for similar reasons that I support the ban of heroin and cocaine. They simply pose too much risk to public safety if used by irresponsible people to tolerate.

I would support a ban on high-capacity magazines, but not on assault rifles. You can put a 30-round magazine in a handgun and kill a whole room full of people without reloading, but you can't do it with a 9-round magazine. Once you limit the capacity of an assault rifle, it is no deadlier than any other rifle. You also have carbines that use handgun ammo, which were used in the Columbine shootings, and no one is talking about banning those.

In either case, banning assault rifles and 30-round magazines only helps with spree killings. The homicides that occur on a daily basis do not involve either one, so even a 100% ban will do very little to reduce the total amount of gun violence.

If you reduce the size of the magazines then the rifle itself is neutered. A rifle with the same magazine capacity as the average hand gun essentially becomes a giant handgun. Of course reducing the size of magazines does nothing to reduce the size of the urban drug and street gangs who do 95% of the homicides and it does nothing to deal with the mentally unhinged either. I have no problem with smaller magazines...there's enough of them around to supply the shooting publics needs for several generations. But, in the end with all of the bans that are being talked about there will still be the street gangs and the crazies and the sociopaths, not to mention the drugged and the drunks and the careless. Until the black street gangs, the hispanic drug gangs, the white biker gangs and the various asian mafias are dealt with street shootings and drive bys will continue unabated. Until we have a real mental health poicy in place and funded the lunatics will still shoot up schools and movie theaters....or throw gasoline bombs like the one that killed 160 people at the Happyland Social Club in New York back in the 1980's....look this up!

Neither, because the reasons for such bans will not be satisfied. For example, the reason they want to ban high capacity Mags is to limit the amount of bullets shot or at least slow down the shooter. Truth be told, a magazine can be changed out in less than 3 seconds, so it does nothing to slow or stop a shooter bent on destruction. Further, banning assault weapons does nothing because there is no real definition of such a weapon. The last time there was a ban, all the manufactures had to do was change the Model number or remove a bayonet stud and it met the laws guidelines.

No, A few main reasons.

1. Banning a gun on how it looks is not a good way to make a law. There are legitimate reasons to having "assault weapons" think a nuclear power plants whom provide their own protection. Since the supreme court says corporations are people they would be limited by these laws.

2. It takes less than 1 second to change a clip out , this will change nothing and cost a lot of money for no gain.

Frankly i'd a lot as a substitute ban those people that will ban your list of artifacts above. I appreciate that you're trying to keep the world, but you are beating a damaged drum while nobody is listening! I assure you that a bullet from a "searching" rifle -of which you approve- is solely as lethal as one fired from a type of which you'd ban. Perhaps, you can aid my want to ban from the earth females that put on green or blue nail polish. It makes as much sense as your prejudice, but i'm going to wager more humans accept as true with me than you.

No.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Why the assault weapons ban is ignorant legislation:

-The term "assault weapon" is a misnomer. It is meant to confuse people and make them associate "assault weapons" with "assault rifles," which have been illegal since 1986 and have almost never been involved in crimes.

-It bans weapons based solely on cosmetic features like pistol grips. These features do not effect the function of the firearm. A rifle with a pistol grip is not "more dangerous" than one without. It's a piece of plastic.

-The assault weapons ban (1994-2004) did nothing to effect crime rates. The only thing it accomplished was annoying lawful gun-owners.

-"Assault weapons" are involved in fewer crimes than baseball bats and hammers. Focusing on these tools with ineffective legislation is not going to deter criminals in the slightest.

Why magazine restrictions are dangerous:

-How many rounds does it take to protect yourself? It often takes multiple rounds to incapacitate an attacker, and there are situations where you may be faced with multiple attackers. When the government says you can only have 10 rounds in your magazine, that only hamstrings your ability to protect yourself. Military and police both use larger magazines because they are proper and necessary for the purpose of self-preservation.

Sure, the assault rifle bans, about which there seems to be no agreement as to what they are, don't do anything but kill people, you can't hunt with them, you don't need to target shoot with them, you can have lousy aim and still hit a target its not a challenge.

An extended magazine is useful in a war, when you don't want to run out of bullets while shooting at the enemy and needing to take a few seconds to reload.

It's also useful for killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, and negating those few brief seconds to be attacked by others, or allow them to run off.

I'd support both those things.

Keep in mind, that is not banning guns, you'd still have rifles, shotguns and handguns, could still protect yourself, or use a gun for hunting or target practice.

No the nanny state doesn't need to expand anymore than the behemoth that it already is.

There is no good definition of an "assault rifle."

Making more restrictions won't change the behavior of criminals who wish to commit heinous crimes or those who are mentally ill and are hell bent on this kind of behavior. Criminals can always get illegal weapons or high capacity firearms. Law abiding citizens aren't the problem and making laws that restrict what they can own is pointless. ( Security theatre).

The constitution lays things out quite clearly. It doesn't say except those firearms that Obama, Feinstein and Joe Biden don't like for purposes of political gain.

No, I'd prefer more informed legislation that addresses the true problem.

I'd support firearms competency licensing, similar to drivers' licensing.

Both exams would have an eyesight test.

Though the firearms licensing exams would also include psychological screening.