|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 21 2012 12:02 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:52 mainerd wrote:On July 21 2012 11:47 m4inbrain wrote:On July 21 2012 11:43 mainerd wrote:On July 21 2012 11:32 m4inbrain wrote:On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine Wheres the need for that? 10 round mags? Dont forget that you can change them pretty quickly (depending on the gun) - you dont need a huge high powered sniper rifle to defend yourself. ![[image loading]](http://www.wildrivermedia.com/guns/handcannon.jpg) Done. Massacres wont happen anymore (in that magnitude), and you can still fend off a thief. Of course, if there are 5 thieves, you have a problem, but you wouldnt kill all of them with a semi-automatic rifle as well. Wow what a silly looking thing, no trigger guard or sights, if you don't misfire just handling the thing you'll likely miss and might hurt someone who isn't threatening you with bodily harm. If the only guns people had shot just a single round, the entire point of carrying them, as a deterrent and for protection, would be nearly defeated. All you'd have to do is miss once and you're screwed. Then again maybe your entire post was sarcastic, I can't tell. Maybe its because its selfmade. But the point stands as it is. You dont need sights (as was confirmed by another american in this thread, you dont need sights in "near-melee", you just point and shoot), at all(!). And why would the purpose defeated? Make sure you dont miss then, according to most of the ppl here, they can fire guns in a hysteric crowd and still guarantee to not fuckin shoot an innocent person. But thanks, so you need more ammunition, because you actually cant really aim and may need more than one shot, is that correct? Hopefully you don't *need* any ammunition at all, but if you want to raise an attacker's hopes by giving them the knowledge you've just got one single shot and that's it, you're just weakening the chances that your sidearm will be a deterrent in the first place. I wont need any at all, i come from a country where guns are not allowed to everyone. But again, you are missing my point. Let me make myself a bit clearer. Explain to me why the fuck you would need to buy a Desert Tactical Arms HTI .50 BMG? Im curious for that answer. And while you are at it, explain to me why its completely legal to own a modified full auto SSAR-15 (with ~900 rounds per minute). Do you really want to explain to me, that these are "sports-weapons", or "hunting rifles"?
I'm not sure why you are asking me about these guns, I just took issue with your assertion that single shot sidearms should be adequate. I believe they are not, and very nearly defeat the purpose of carrying them entirely.
What I will point out about the utility of the guns you've mentioned is the pleasure gained from shooting them at the range. Well engineered weapons, that increase range and accuracy, are kind of like sports cars compared to a family van or workhorse pickup truck. It's not a question of need, but indulging in excess. Some people want to drive fast with the top down, others want to spend a day with some buddies putting some rounds down range. Personally I have no problem with either, they are both hobbies.
It's an unfortunate fact of life that there are sick people out there who want to harm others, that's true in every part of the world, luckily I live somewhere where I could go purchase a side arm for protection if I felt like I needed it (I have yet to feel that need). Where I live we have higher than average gun ownership, and very lax gun laws (cash and carry is 100% legal), and we've got the lowest rate of violent crimes per capita in the nation. IMO, let people enjoy their hobbies, within reason, as long as it is not endangering anyone else.
|
I wont need any at all, i come from a country where guns are not allowed to everyone. But again, you are missing my point. Let me make myself a bit clearer. Explain to me why the fuck you would need to buy a Desert Tactical Arms HTI .50 BMG?
Im curious for that answer. And while you are at it, explain to me why its completely legal to own a modified full auto SSAR-15 (with ~900 rounds per minute). Do you really want to explain to me, that these are "sports-weapons", or "hunting rifles"?
It is funny how the people who don't have guns tend to be the ones that believe no one else should have one. Live in the country and everyone has a gun and there is no gun violence.
imo kinda pathetic how people thing they can blame gun rights when crime correlates with high populated urban areas, not those who own guns.
I see gun collectors all the time who have historic or military weapons, not a single one that I have met used them as 'sport-weapons' or 'hunting rifles'. Kinda pathetic you would even suggest that.
|
I'm always torn on this subject.
I feel that guns dont give society any benefit. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment whether people want to believe it or not has outlived its purpose. IE, if you want to stand up against the US gov, good luck when the drone flies over your house(obv exaggeration i know). If we go into an all out war and are invaded, im sorry but the ground force necessary to invade us, would be so significant that no handguns would be worth anything.Please dont argue self defense, the numbers dont back anyone argument that guns help in these situations. They do more harm then good.
However much of American history has shown that if you make something illegal that has been so prevalent someone will create a black market of some sort and lead to much unrest. See prohibition and the oh so present "war on drugs" (lawls). Then much drama and stupidity will ensue. That doesnt mean things should be kept legal either if theyre clearly awful, but....in our culture, the shock might be too much.
Dont think you should look at the stuff occuring in colorado for examples pro or con on this argument, the top and bottom percenters of most arguments are almost always so rare that something would happen regardless unfortunately  Maybe thats a mistake but i dunno.
Its also just very hard to legislate certain areas. There are parts of the states where having a gun with you is kinda necessary against some very violent aggressive predators, granted these are few and far between. This doesnt mean that a logical concerted effort cant get the job done.
tldr, very difficult topic 
|
I'm the one in charge of keeping my families service rifles DanceSC. Owning doesn't help or hinder you from seeing the necessity of legalizing automatic rifles.
I favor assault rifle restriction but I own and have fired quite a few guns. It doesn't make the idea or the consequences any less stupid in my mind. I have no problem with handguns or hunting rifles or even semi automatic ones. But you can't exactly say I needed an AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine to go hunt squirrels.
|
On July 21 2012 13:34 DanceSC wrote:Show nested quote +I wont need any at all, i come from a country where guns are not allowed to everyone. But again, you are missing my point. Let me make myself a bit clearer. Explain to me why the fuck you would need to buy a Desert Tactical Arms HTI .50 BMG?
Im curious for that answer. And while you are at it, explain to me why its completely legal to own a modified full auto SSAR-15 (with ~900 rounds per minute). Do you really want to explain to me, that these are "sports-weapons", or "hunting rifles"? It is funny how the people who don't have guns tend to be the ones that believe no one else should have one. Live in the country and everyone has a gun and there is no gun violence. imo kinda pathetic how people thing they can blame gun rights when crime correlates with high populated urban areas, not those who own guns. I see gun collectors all the time who have historic or military weapons, not a single one that I have met used them as 'sport-weapons' or 'hunting rifles'. Kinda pathetic you would even suggest that.
It's hard to argue that more guns doesn't mean more gun violence. It doesn't mean anything that there is more violence in the inner cities what matters is how that violence plays out. A fist fight between two people is just a fist fight but throw guns into the mix shit can get really ugly just like the Trayvon Martin case. Throwing a gun into heated situation automatically makes them life and death for everyone involved. The instant someone goes for the gun some one is more than likely going to end up with a new hole.
Also if people had guns also in the theatre it could have turned out to be much much worse. Imagine your in the theatre with your pistol/rifle/MG/nuclear arsenal. It's dark, smoky and the music from the movie is loud and you draw your weapon to shoot the person you perceive to be shooting. Some other guy down from you was doing the exact same thing and he thinks your shooting and now your dead. Depending on how good of a shot you are, panic, and people possibly bumping into you trying to get the fuck out of there through the crowded aisles you could wind up blowing some little girl away. Obviously what ifs mean nothing but not everyone is cool headed and well trained who is carrying around a gun. Hell my little brother and my dad just went and got their gun licenses last weekend. One day of testing now they can own a gun and honestly the testing seems like common sense. Idk how concealed carry works but I do hope it is much more rigorous.
Personally I believe bolt action rifles should be allowed and that is it. Thats all you need for self defense in your own home and for hunting. If you want to shoot "sports car" weapons (that is actually a really good way to put it) you should be able to at a government licensed range imo.
|
1019 Posts
Americans supporting such lax gun laws as we currently have (and making gun laws even looser than they already are, which is insane), should look at other countries' gun laws before beating your chests and talking about 2nd amendment rights and the right to protect yourself from armed attackers.
First of all, how the fuck can you justify having not just one shooting gun but two or three more in a darkened, smoke-filled room? A few weeks of training doesn't make you a crackshot with a gun as you all think you are as you starting making "what if" and "could have" ideas that you would have been the hero to take down the shooter. Wake up from your dream. More guns going off would have killed more innocent people.
There are countries around the world where guns are totally restricted to the public save the military and police. How can that ever be a bad idea? It won't ever work in the states, but how is this approach wrong? If I know nobody in the room could ever possibly have a gun, doesn't that make society that much safer? If I'm a police officer in south korea, I don't have to worry about meeting someone armed with an ak-47 while I only have a glock. Going beyond the argument for self-defense, the core fact that guns are in the hands in the public is the reason why mass shootings happen in the first place.
|
On July 21 2012 14:09 white_horse wrote:
Americans supporting such lax gun laws as we currently have (and making gun laws even looser than they already are, which is insane), should look at other countries' gun laws before beating your chests and talking about 2nd amendment rights and the right to protect yourself from armed attackers.
First of all, how the fuck can you justify having not just one shooting gun but two or three more in a darkened, smoke-filled room? A few weeks of training doesn't make you a crackshot with a gun as you all think you are as you starting making "what if" and "could have" ideas that you would have been the hero to take down the shooter. Wake up from your dream. More guns going off would have killed more innocent people.
There are countries around the world where guns are totally restricted to the public save the military and police. How can that ever be a bad idea? It won't ever work in the states, but how is this approach wrong? If I know nobody in the room could ever possibly have a gun, doesn't that make society that much safer? If I'm a police officer in south korea, I don't have to worry about meeting someone armed with an ak-47 while I only have a glock. Going beyond the argument for self-defense, the core fact that guns are in the hands in the public is the reason why mass shootings happen in the first place.
Simply put, because they would still get the gun. Making a law banning guns would not stop people from getting them. The people that are using them the wrong way are getting them illegally in the first place. So how would any law help? I'd rather have a gun to shoot back with then be forced to have to run by him and hope he doesn't shoot me. There's too many what ifs. If I was there and had a gun i'd find something to hide behind, not just start shooting blindly back at the sound. Secondly muzzle flash is quite bright and in a room of only 50-75 meters it would be very hard to miss shooting directly at muzzle flash.
|
Banning guns will work about as well as banning drugs. I am sure nobody will ever break the law. Just like, "Gun Free Zones" like schools and movie theaters never have massacres, right?
The fact is the prevalence of guns really doesn't matter; just the quality of people using the guns. There are nations with homogeneous societies that have fairly high rates of gun ownership and very low rates of homicide (most commonly cited, Switzerland. Breivik bought his guns legally too and Norway doesn't have a huge homicide problem).
America happens to have a large subset of its population that is very criminal and makes up for a large part of the high homicide rates. Largely black and urban.
|
I cant understand this notion of "if everyone had guns, there would be no gun violence" comes from.
history shows us compelete opposite.
fencing is a far more older and established sport than shooting yet you cant run around with a sword no matter how much you like your hobbie.
how can shooting in target range is an excuse for carrying a firearm?
|
On July 21 2012 14:09 white_horse wrote:
Americans supporting such lax gun laws as we currently have (and making gun laws even looser than they already are, which is insane), should look at other countries' gun laws before beating your chests and talking about 2nd amendment rights and the right to protect yourself from armed attackers.
First of all, how the fuck can you justify having not just one shooting gun but two or three more in a darkened, smoke-filled room? A few weeks of training doesn't make you a crackshot with a gun as you all think you are as you starting making "what if" and "could have" ideas that you would have been the hero to take down the shooter. Wake up from your dream. More guns going off would have killed more innocent people.
There are countries around the world where guns are totally restricted to the public save the military and police. How can that ever be a bad idea? It won't ever work in the states, but how is this approach wrong? If I know nobody in the room could ever possibly have a gun, doesn't that make society that much safer? If I'm a police officer in south korea, I don't have to worry about meeting someone armed with an ak-47 while I only have a glock. Going beyond the argument for self-defense, the core fact that guns are in the hands in the public is the reason why mass shootings happen in the first place.
Presuming that someone with a concealed weapon would have killed more innocent people opening fire on the guy in the gas mask is just as bad as assuming they'd hit their target spot on, imo.
Why should police have guns, if they're banned in the country and no one else has them? And why should civilians trust police to wield the power of firearms honestly and dutifully, considering all the cases the pop up of police corruption and excessive use of force? And if we decide that no one should have guns at all, including police, that's a bit better, but then if someone who by the circumstance of their upbringing lives in a neighborhood with a high crime rate gets stabbed to death by a crack head with a knife, is that just collateral damage on the path for the betterment/safety of society? If a gun could have saved their life, should they have had one? I think so.
|
Im with George Carlin on this one: Everyone should have access to guns, but the ammunition should cost a TON of money 
|
On July 21 2012 14:09 white_horse wrote:
Americans supporting such lax gun laws as we currently have (and making gun laws even looser than they already are, which is insane), should look at other countries' gun laws before beating your chests and talking about 2nd amendment rights and the right to protect yourself from armed attackers.
First of all, how the fuck can you justify having not just one shooting gun but two or three more in a darkened, smoke-filled room? A few weeks of training doesn't make you a crackshot with a gun as you all think you are as you starting making "what if" and "could have" ideas that you would have been the hero to take down the shooter. Wake up from your dream. More guns going off would have killed more innocent people.
There are countries around the world where guns are totally restricted to the public save the military and police. How can that ever be a bad idea? It won't ever work in the states, but how is this approach wrong? If I know nobody in the room could ever possibly have a gun, doesn't that make society that much safer? If I'm a police officer in south korea, I don't have to worry about meeting someone armed with an ak-47 while I only have a glock. Going beyond the argument for self-defense, the core fact that guns are in the hands in the public is the reason why mass shootings happen in the first place.
As you said, it wouldn't work in the states. I don't think that the approach that some other countries take is the worst thing in the world, or even bad in some/most cases. It just wouldn't work in the states.
|
On July 21 2012 14:32 mainerd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 14:09 white_horse wrote:
Americans supporting such lax gun laws as we currently have (and making gun laws even looser than they already are, which is insane), should look at other countries' gun laws before beating your chests and talking about 2nd amendment rights and the right to protect yourself from armed attackers.
First of all, how the fuck can you justify having not just one shooting gun but two or three more in a darkened, smoke-filled room? A few weeks of training doesn't make you a crackshot with a gun as you all think you are as you starting making "what if" and "could have" ideas that you would have been the hero to take down the shooter. Wake up from your dream. More guns going off would have killed more innocent people.
There are countries around the world where guns are totally restricted to the public save the military and police. How can that ever be a bad idea? It won't ever work in the states, but how is this approach wrong? If I know nobody in the room could ever possibly have a gun, doesn't that make society that much safer? If I'm a police officer in south korea, I don't have to worry about meeting someone armed with an ak-47 while I only have a glock. Going beyond the argument for self-defense, the core fact that guns are in the hands in the public is the reason why mass shootings happen in the first place. Presuming that someone with a concealed weapon would have killed more innocent people opening fire on the guy in the gas mask is just as bad as assuming they'd hit their target spot on, imo. Why should police have guns, if they're banned in the country and no one else has them? And why should civilians trust police to wield the power of firearms honestly and dutifully, considering all the cases the pop up of police corruption and excessive use of force? And if we decide that no one should have guns at all, including police, that's a bit better, but then if someone who by the circumstance of their upbringing lives in a neighborhood with a high crime rate gets stabbed to death by a crack head with a knife, is that just collateral damage on the path for the betterment/safety of society? If a gun could have saved their life, should they have had one? I think so.
well there are places in the world where police do not use/carry guns.
|
On July 21 2012 14:32 mainerd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 14:09 white_horse wrote:
Americans supporting such lax gun laws as we currently have (and making gun laws even looser than they already are, which is insane), should look at other countries' gun laws before beating your chests and talking about 2nd amendment rights and the right to protect yourself from armed attackers.
First of all, how the fuck can you justify having not just one shooting gun but two or three more in a darkened, smoke-filled room? A few weeks of training doesn't make you a crackshot with a gun as you all think you are as you starting making "what if" and "could have" ideas that you would have been the hero to take down the shooter. Wake up from your dream. More guns going off would have killed more innocent people.
There are countries around the world where guns are totally restricted to the public save the military and police. How can that ever be a bad idea? It won't ever work in the states, but how is this approach wrong? If I know nobody in the room could ever possibly have a gun, doesn't that make society that much safer? If I'm a police officer in south korea, I don't have to worry about meeting someone armed with an ak-47 while I only have a glock. Going beyond the argument for self-defense, the core fact that guns are in the hands in the public is the reason why mass shootings happen in the first place. Presuming that someone with a concealed weapon would have killed more innocent people opening fire on the guy in the gas mask is just as bad as assuming they'd hit their target spot on, imo. Why should police have guns, if they're banned in the country and no one else has them? And why should civilians trust police to wield the power of firearms honestly and dutifully, considering all the cases the pop up of police corruption and excessive use of force? And if we decide that no one should have guns at all, including police, that's a bit better, but then if someone who by the circumstance of their upbringing lives in a neighborhood with a high crime rate gets stabbed to death by a crack head with a knife, is that just collateral damage on the path for the betterment/safety of society? If a gun could have saved their life, should they have had one? I think so.
Do you really think that if the government wanted to take over the country that your puny weapons would do anything about it? Honestly? Tanks, Drones, APC's bombers, Special Forces and the list goes on. Sure you could do some guerilla warfare but I doubt most westerners would last long in that type of warfare. Especially if all the rules was taken out of the war like it would in a dictatorship. No more protection for non combatants if your related to a freedom fighter you better believe many people under torture would crack and give up information on the freedom fighters.
Police having guns is a special circumstance because they are in plain view of the law and their actions should be under constant scrutiny to ensure that they are using their weapons as intended and if not they should have stricter sentences. (Lots of cops get away with really slimy shit though...)
Why do you have to kill someone for your protection? Pepper spray would do in the crackhead scenario to stop it and then you just leave. Idk why some people are so bent on just killing anyone who is a threat. I don't in anyway believe in only non lethal options for people and I am actually for gun ownership but lots of people carrying around guns seem to be itching to use them and that scares me tbh.
|
On July 21 2012 14:49 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 14:32 mainerd wrote:On July 21 2012 14:09 white_horse wrote:
Americans supporting such lax gun laws as we currently have (and making gun laws even looser than they already are, which is insane), should look at other countries' gun laws before beating your chests and talking about 2nd amendment rights and the right to protect yourself from armed attackers.
First of all, how the fuck can you justify having not just one shooting gun but two or three more in a darkened, smoke-filled room? A few weeks of training doesn't make you a crackshot with a gun as you all think you are as you starting making "what if" and "could have" ideas that you would have been the hero to take down the shooter. Wake up from your dream. More guns going off would have killed more innocent people.
There are countries around the world where guns are totally restricted to the public save the military and police. How can that ever be a bad idea? It won't ever work in the states, but how is this approach wrong? If I know nobody in the room could ever possibly have a gun, doesn't that make society that much safer? If I'm a police officer in south korea, I don't have to worry about meeting someone armed with an ak-47 while I only have a glock. Going beyond the argument for self-defense, the core fact that guns are in the hands in the public is the reason why mass shootings happen in the first place. Presuming that someone with a concealed weapon would have killed more innocent people opening fire on the guy in the gas mask is just as bad as assuming they'd hit their target spot on, imo. Why should police have guns, if they're banned in the country and no one else has them? And why should civilians trust police to wield the power of firearms honestly and dutifully, considering all the cases the pop up of police corruption and excessive use of force? And if we decide that no one should have guns at all, including police, that's a bit better, but then if someone who by the circumstance of their upbringing lives in a neighborhood with a high crime rate gets stabbed to death by a crack head with a knife, is that just collateral damage on the path for the betterment/safety of society? If a gun could have saved their life, should they have had one? I think so. Do you really think that if the government wanted to take over the country that your puny weapons would do anything about it? Honestly? Tanks, Drones, APC's bombers, Special Forces and the list goes on. Sure you could do some guerilla warfare but I doubt most westerners would last long in that type of warfare. Especially if all the rules was taken out of the war like it would in a dictatorship. No more protection for non combatants if your related to a freedom fighter you better believe many people under torture would crack and give up information on the freedom fighters. Police having guns is a special circumstance because they are in plain view of the law and their actions should be under constant scrutiny to ensure that they are using their weapons as intended and if not they should have stricter sentences. (Lots of cops get away with really slimy shit though...) Why do you have to kill someone for your protection? Pepper spray would do in the crackhead scenario to stop it and then you just leave. Idk why some people are so bent on just killing anyone who is a threat. I don't in anyway believe in only non lethal options for people and I am actually for gun ownership but lots of people carrying around guns seem to be itching to use them and that scares me tbh.
If the government and the military decided to "take over the country" (not sure what this means, enslavement?) you're quite correct, they would have quite an advantage. Really though, the military industrial complex and its ties to our government already run this country so completely, I'm not sure why they'd try this, so I didn't really consider it. This is the kind of thing crazy guys in militias who train in fatigues out in the woods think about  .
When I referred to police having weapons and citizens being denied that right, I was considering that police are not immune from corruption, and have been recorded on numerous occasions using excessive force. This is a poor way to do it and gives a small ammount of people the power of life and death over the entire populace. Not a big fan of this idea, and would prefer no guns to citizens and police rather than police being armed exclusively.
About self defense and firearms; you don't always have to pull the trigger, in a lot of situations, just brandishing a firearm can achieve the desired result. However, life is quite tenuous, and if it's *my* life on the line with someone coming at me with a knife, I would certainly want a pistol. I'm no self defense expert, like most citizens, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be afforded a certain ammount of security from those who could seek to take advantage of me, and perhaps harm me or kill me. Again, I do not own a firearm, and live somewhere where I wouldn't consider purchasing one at this point. But considering some of the crime rates in certain parts of the country, I think people should be allowed to acquire one for personal defense if they need to.
|
guns don't kill people. minorities kill people.
just kidding.
seriously though it comes down to choices; more specifically the ability to make choices. i'm a firm believer that people should have the right to make their own choices, within reason.
buying and owning a gun does nothing to anyone other than the person buying and owning.
arguments can be made that increased availability will lead to increased usage. however, making legislation to regulate potentiality is a dangerous road to go down.
how much should government be involved? control guns, control alcohol, control drugs, control media content, control diets, control internet usage, etc. the jump from guns to internet is exaggerated, but the vein of thought still pumps true.
if guns were banned tomorrow (including subsequent confiscation); would lethal crime rates drop? hell yes they would. but the same can be said of prohibiting alcohol leading to reduced fatal car accidents.
regulating the manner and types of guns sold is another matter. no one needs a fully automatic rifles with armor piercing bullets. registration and licensing should be lengthy and strictly enforced.
anywho, arming oneself to protect against government power is a defunct idea. if anything it should be amended to be about arming oneself in the eventuality of global disasters.
|
The idea that "It's pointless to restrict, because there are always blackmarket or means of getting an illegal item" is void.
It's equivalent saying that there are always crime, so police should stop arresting people, or there is always hungry on the street, we should stop feeding them, or there is always people living below the poverty line, we should stop trying to improve their situation.
But US is already a hellhole, so you can't do much about it. Too many privately owned guns that it require long time to take them away.
|
People in a free country should be able to own firearms for self defense. If you ban all guns the only thing that will happen is the criminals will still have their guns while the law abiding citizens lose theirs. You really think criminals who already break the law will abide by any gun restriction laws? You're just going to see crime rate go up when you have criminals with guns and citizens who follow the law without them. What are you ganna do when your home gets robbed and you can't own a gun? Use a samurai sword? These shooting sprees are terrible but that shouldn't cost the hundreds of millions of people in the USA to lose their right to own guns. You taking an isolated incident that rarely happens and using that to take the rights away of everyone else. The world will never be perfect you gotta take the good with the bad. The 2nd Amendment was meant for people to have the right to defend themselves with firearms, also if the government gets out of control it's meant to keep them in check with the possibility of revolting against the government. The USA government is already out of control with them driving the country into bankruptcy with these unconstituitional wars and all this criminal spending. USA is going to become BANKRUPT in the next 5-10 years and when no one is making money and able to support and feed their families crime rates are going to go way up. Then if we lose our 2nd Amendment you're going to wish you didn't.
|
YES, Absolutely! Everyone deserves the right to be able to protect themselves and their family.
|
Nothing wrong with a sweet MG3 for self-defense purpose <3
Actually, I personally would feel more threatened than safe, if I'd knew everyone else has a gun, cause that would add one more big point to the "what I have to look for caused by idiots in my surroundings"-agenda and believe me, driving for 11 years, a lot of people have tried to killed me already :F
But that is probably due to the fact I grew up without guns and absolutely dont feel like I need to own one (though shooting em on a range is fun as shit (MG3 <3))
On July 21 2012 15:26 Esk23 wrote:
The USA government is already out of control with them driving the country into bankruptcy with these unconstituitional wars and all this criminal spending. USA is going to become BANKRUPT in the next 5-10 years and when no one is making money and able to support and feed their families crime rates are going to go way up. Then if we lose our 2nd Amendment you're going to wish you didn't.
Technically speaking, you are already more than bankrupt, but nobody sais that, cause the truth hurts and the markets will be woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-rollercoaster-style :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
