Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course you blindly trust government to not abuse that power, and make it cost prohibitive for the law abiding to own guns. What other rights do you want to give government total control over? Speech, travel? How about having to demonstrate a "need" to travel, and pay the appropriate fees, and have the appropriate papers?
No thanks. We are not East Germany because of our Constitution AS WRITTEN.
That would give the government no more control over the guns as it does a drivers license. So what is the problem? The yearly part? The background check? The database?
It is because of the constitution that this could work, actually. More guns would be accounted for, more people would be vetted more often, and everyone gets to keep their guns.
Although we would agree on the cost part... It would need to be free, or very cheap fee.
That being said, all of you have a great weekend. Gun nuts, people who want to ban guns, and everyone in between. I have a strict "no arguing on the internet" policy for the weekends, so I am out.
Most of your reply to me has been asked and answered in other posts by myself.
However, you are claiming that I am judging you based off of your posts, and that is wrong, yet you do the same thing to me?? So which is it? Can you judge people off their posts, or not?? I am typing from a cell phone most of the time, so I may not always be able to make my arguments as clear as I could if I were at a desktop, or as clear as I would like, just due to time and frustration with the autocorrect and touchy screen.
But please, continue with your irrational, foaming at the mouth "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!" arguments. Just proves my point.
any judgements i make are based on your reactions to my posts. you made the claim that somehow because i want to buy or build an AR15 for my personal inventory, that i want children dead. and that is a false argument on your part, and i suspect you know it. your posts have shown you to be a hysterical person based on your reactions to my posts, i dont care if you are posting from a cell phone or not they are still your reactions.
i also made judgements on what you know about guns, based again on your own posts that show in fact you dont know much about them.
as for me being irrational about you telling me what i can or cannot do, you are not my mother, you are not god, you are not the dictator of this country. what i can or cannot do is with in the laws of this country, not the laws that queen imissthe90s wants.
Isn't that what we are all doing? Judging people based off of what they post? Either way, you would be wrong about me. I have no "fear" or ignorance when it comes to guns. My husband and I both own guns. I have ZERO problems with guns used for hunting or protection. An AR-15 is not for either. It is for people who want to show off to friends or take it to the shooting range. It has no practical use in everyday life. None.
The fact is though, people who want to be able to own things like an AR-15, are willing to overlook school shootings to be able to continue to buy/own them. If you own one, you are in that group. If you don't, you are still in that group, since you think people should be able to ride down the street in a panzer with Uzi's and Ak's.
The greater point, is that most normal people, would happily give up their assault rifles if it meant no more school shootings. Most normal people would be perfectly fine with more stringent background checks, and safety courses. If you aren't, then you are fine with children being killed by the weapons you want to keep. And don't try the whole, "Well he could have used a pistol or a hunting rifle!" nonsense either. We both know that they aren't capable of the same things.
The AR is a good hunting rifle and functions no different than most other hunting rifles.
I realize it wouldn't stop them completely. I may have misspoke a bit there. I apologize.
Are you really saying that you think he could have done this much damage with a pistol? A hunting rifle? What about Paddock? You really think he could have done as much damage using his hunting rifle? Please.
You also can't say he would have done as much damage from a distance, using a regular ole hunting rifle either. Come on man.
In the environment he chose, a lot of unarmed distracted people in a small area with limited exits......which seems to be very common with mass shooters looking for easy prey........yes.
A crowded school, noisy distracted kids milling about the hallways with their noses buried in their phones, wearing earbuds and generally just being kids.
He could have easily killed 17 people with a pistol.
I suck at reloading a revolver and I can do it in 3 or 4 seconds with a speed loader.
A six shot revolver, say 1 second to fire each round and 5 seconds to reload means he could theoretically get off 18 shots in about 30 seconds.
How long after he starts shooting until he's actually confronted by an armed guard or police? 10 minutes at least......probably more if your relying on police.
Other pistols hold more rounds and are even faster to reload.
And if you think someone would wrestle the gun away from him while he's reloading, that's wishful thinking at best.......what if he has another loaded pistol too?
These kids were fish in a barrel, even a simple shotgun would have been equally devastating or worse
The media is desperately blaming Trump. Do people actually fall for such propaganda?
Go ahead and ban the AR-15. Psycho kids will simply use another semi-automatic gun like... double action handguns! Banning AR-15's accomplishes nothing. AR-15's are basically handguns that look like machine guns.
Or maybe they'll instead use a truck and plow over people. Then Jimmy Kimmel (D) will cry on camera and call for a ban on trucks and of course blame Trump.
I realize it wouldn't stop them completely. I may have misspoke a bit there. I apologize.
Are you really saying that you think he could have done this much damage with a pistol? A hunting rifle? What about Paddock? You really think he could have done as much damage using his hunting rifle? Please.
You also can't say he would have done as much damage from a distance, using a regular ole hunting rifle either. Come on man.
He could have done more damage using a hunting rifle. Any large caliber hunting rifle is more powerful and can have a 20 rd mag. A round could have gone through victims and hit more behind them. An AR .223 round is fairly weak. Thjey are all semi auto too.
I don't think you have to worry about a ban although hope springs eternal, not going to happen with a president that has $30M in NRA backing.
I wouldn't want to deprive anyone of one of those life necessities such as an AR15, that would be horrible.
Yeah, I'm sure a guy with a net worth of $3.1 billion is really tempted by 30 mil from the NRA.
I still don't like or trust the guy though...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
