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.
I tried very hard, but I can't think of any reason why a law abiding citizen would want to own an assault weapon. If your true motive for owning a gun is to protect yourself, why isn't a normal gun good enough? What's next, your own miniature nuclear bomb under the guise of "Second Amendment rights"? Where does it stop?
its obvious you're not smart enough to own a keyboard.
throw it in the garbage and go back downstairs to your mama's basement and play pacman.
I own one. In fact, it's leaning up against my couch right now, albeit in 2 pieces because I need to clean it. I have never killed anyone with it, and hope I never need to. I may use it to kill a deer in the future, but thus far, the only thing I've killed is pieces of paper.
Tell me again how I'm a problem to society?
Because, like all other gun fondlers, you've helped glorify weapons designed to kill as toys, status symbols and enablers of toughness.
And then you're just stunned when someone missing a few screws uses one for its intended purpose.
At least we've got the conservative crowd to think about improving the mental health system. Until Friday, you were the same people who wanted to keep people from getting health care. Good to know it's your new top priority, now that you need a scapegoat for your culpability in glamorizing guns.
Because, like all other gun fondlers, you've helped glorify weapons designed to kill as toys, status symbols and enablers of toughness.
What codswallop.
Yes, they're designed to kill. I recognize the reality that I may one day be in a situation where killing another person in necessary. I don't relish that thought, and hope that it never happens, but I would rather have it and not need it than the other way around.
Frankly, I think it's irresponsible to NOT own at least one.
I believe that the primary reason for having the 2nd amendment actually put on paper was to leave no doubt that people had a right to defend themselves from their own government if they had to. The hunting, plinking, and burglar-shooting aspect was just an added benefit. Unfortunately, most people would rather talk about hunting and plinking because they're too uncomfortable and sheepish to acknowledge that governments have a tendency towards despotism from day one.
So, in your mind every firearm owned by a civilian should either be single shot or be modified to make it work like a single shot firearm. And you don't find this to be an extreme reaction?
As for your idea on limiting ammunition, how did you plan on dealing with the thousands who make their own ammunition at home?
Now, let's move on to the financial impact of your plan. Considering that every handgun, and most long guns, falls into one of the categories that you would like to ban, your idea would mostly shut down the firearms industry in the United States. Do you realize how many people are employed by this industry? Including people that are directly employed by manufacturers and distributors of firearms and ammuniton, as well as firearms dealers and gunsmiths, you're probably looking at close to a quarter of a million jobs that would be lost.
I can't find the link right now, but if IIRC the firearms industry accounts for somewhere over $4 billion in federal tax revenue.
All in all, your idea would financially devastate a huge number of people in order to make people feel like "something was done" in reaction to a tragedy that had far more to do with the perpetrator's mental health than it did with what he used to carry out the atrocity.
Yes. In my opinion, every firearm should be single shot or modified to make it work as such. Gun manufacturers will still be able to manufacture weapons and sell them - just not weapons that can fire more than two rounds in the time it takes a person to run more than a certain distance (I was thinking 50 yards but that number could be refined).
I am also of the opinion that those who work in the firearms industry and those who've pushed for such lax gun control laws all have the price of these kinds of shootings on their head. It's not just Connecticut. It's Arizona, it's Aurora, it's Virginia Tech, it's the Beltway, it's Columbine, it's Kentucky, it's Tennessee... it's basically everywhere.
I have no sympathy for the gun-lovers of this country or for those who work in the field of selling death as a viable means to some end. I agree that the perpetrator's mental health was probably the origination of this tragedy. But, the means provided to him in order to carry it out was far too simple and far too accessible.
As for those who "reload" at home, I think one should either have a special license to do so or it should be made illegal (like making moonshine).
My proposal still allows one to bear armaments. However, like nuclear weapons, RPG's, land mines, etc... we've decided that they are too powerful for the average citizen to carry responsible without having to pick up the pieces of tragedy after tragedy. We therefore have deemed it lawful to restrict access to such weapons. The same should be done with "assault weapons" as defined by something similar to the definition of an assault weapon that I have provided.
And, no, I don't think it's over-reactionary. People have wanted a definition of an "assault weapon" and I've provided one.
Yes, they're designed to kill. I recognize the reality that I may one day be in a situation where killing another person in necessary. I don't relish that thought, and hope that it never happens, but I would rather have it and not need it than the other way around.
Frankly, I think it's irresponsible to NOT own at least one.
Of course you relish it. Why else would you be willing to trade 6-year olds for your "right" to fondle your guns? Nothing else explains it.
Yours is a well written and obviously heart felt post. I must disagree with you. At the same moment we lose our right to keep and bear arms, we lose all our freedoms.
Thanks for reading. Regarding your disagreement to have any gun control laws ( Thats what you are saying right ?) and your "statement" that you are loosing your freedom when your right to bear arms is messed with, thats not a good excuse. We have laws on the books now that would fit within your statement if you painted everything with a broad brush. May I remind you that the freedom of these small children, their parents, grand parents, rights have been lost forever, there is no turning back the clock, I wish there were.You are way overstating the second amendment, also nothing is absolute ether, including all these amendments that were produced in a different time, place, era, no specifics about out of control gun laws. You my friend, still have your " freedoms" whatever ban is put on Ammo, assault weapons etc. you can go on to fight another say, these kids can not !
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.
