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.
Seriously? Have you stopped to consider the tools at the government's disposal?
Government can in no way corral a bunch of snipers, only as long as government agrees to play by the snipers' rules. If you will allow me, I'll offer a tip regarding armed conflict: If your plan depends on the enemy cooperating, it's a bad plan.
200 million snipers with 300 million rifles says it would be a good fight.
Seriously? Have you stopped to consider the tools at the government's disposal?
Government can in no way corral a bunch of snipers, only as long as government agrees to play by the snipers' rules. If you will allow me, I'll offer a tip regarding armed conflict: If your plan depends on the enemy cooperating, it's a bad plan.
If you think superior firepower is all it takes to squash a conflict, explain Vietnam and ISIS.
I like how the left will accuse gun owners of being paranoid about the government taking away their weapons and then in the same breath will say that the government would wipe out all the citizenry who would stand up to it with all the weapons and military at its disposal.
Neither side has a very favorable opinion of the government, it seems.
You don't believe there should be any restrictions on guns, period. You have gun mania or are a gun hoarder (just as legitimate a term as the made up one you used)
The argument about "won't do anything about the problem" has nothing to do with it. You want your toys, regardless of what dangers the unfettered access to them by all people poses to society. That's why the reaction to anything proposed is "it won't stop the problem". The question is not whether it will stop the problem, but lessen it.
Do you want to have an honest and sincere discussion or do you just want to blow some air?
What's your purpose? To save lives or to ban guns?
If it's to save lives, the simplest way is make any felony committed with any weapon a mandatory life sentence.
You would also get universal support for that proposal from almost all the gun nuts. But your liberal masters would not like that idea.
I wonder where the squirrel people got the idea that the world is a safe place? Why do they think they will never be robbed or raped by an armed, generally with a knife or superior size, assailant? Whey did they get the idea that they would be protected from all coercion and there would always be safe zones?
We need to be concerned with the violent people and not the guns.
But the legal hunting rifle like an Remington 270 could do more damage sta distance than the ar 15 or pistol, it just what its design for
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.