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.
Since it has been proven over and over again that such laws do nothing to prevent crime, I do not support any such laws.
Might want to take a look at countries like Australia that heavily restricted guns and haven't had a mass shooting in 21 years. Almost every other developed nation has heavy gun restriction, and their gun violence is astronomically lower than ours.
The Gun Debate is Asinine, Asiten, Asieleven.........
Come on folks, you got to be quite ridiculous to say you need an assault rifle or any military style weapon for protection. Now for me calling people this is probably going to turn a lot of people off who might be willing to listen, but I'm calling a spade a spade. If a robber came into your home in the middle of the night, a simple hand gun or hunting rifle should be more than enough to handle the job. You don't need a semi automatic to take a dude or dudette who probably don't have a weapon (a gun) themselves, out. It's crazy to think you need a highly powered rifle, just to stop one robber, or even more than one. Chances are extremely likely if you fire one shot, if the robber is still alive, they will flee. If you need a gun that fires rapidly just to ward off a robber, you are just a bad shot. You need to go back to the range.
The truth is if a robber did break into a gun owner's home, one who did own many guns including high powered rifles, the owner would pick a handgun from their cache or a similar easy to handle weapon to handle the situation. They wouldn't hop out of bed and reach for their AR-15, with the bump stock attached. If they did that, they are putting more than the robber's life at risk.
The media and people who argue for these military weapons slay me when they say they need it for protection. Yet the most foolish of idiotic claims as to why people need these weapons, is the original argument behind the second amendment. The right to bear arms for the militia, to fight in the event we have a tyrannical government. Come on folks, get real. That idea was formed back in the day, when the government had pretty much the same weapons a militia would have. In fact, the militias were among the strongest fighting forces during the revolutionary war. You won't be able to fight against a tyrannical American military today with your assault rifles. Again, get real. Assuming Trump went fool and had full control over every aspect of the military, he could do whatever the frick he wanted to do. Do you have B-52 bombers in your back yard to fight against Trump? Do you have laser guided drones you bought at a gun show? Do you have naval ships, jets, stealth aircrafts, and the latest technology we don't even know about to take down Trump's army? HECK NO YOU DON"T!!!!!!!!!!! Stop being so ridiculous, it's insulting to anyone with a grain of intelligence. If Trump wanted to take away our guns right now, he has the military to do it. (Fox News always talk about communist countries taking away people's guns. As if they did it democratically)
Ultimately what I'm saying is, there is no reason citizens should have military style weapons. You don't need them to protect yourselves against robbers. When you look at the mass shooters, they were all citizens with no criminal history. They got their guns legally, or if they were high schoolers, got their guns from their parents cache. It's a stupid argument to say bad guys (which is code speak for gang activity or drug cartels) get their hands on these guns, and that's why we need them. That's why you have the military geniuses. If gangs got that out of control in using illegal machine guns, the military arm will shut them down in a snap. In fact, if they wanted to, they could shut down all that potential activity right now. The military and the government arm are you protectors against that, not you Rambo! Also as I stated before, if you're worried about a tyrannical government, you stand no chance against that. So again, there's no good reason for citizens to have military weapons. Whether it's semi-automatic or automatic.
So, putting emotions aside, which Gun laws would you support?
A Ban on Bump Stocks
A Ban on Silencers
A Ban on High Capacity Rifle Magazines (30 Rounds or more)
A Ban on All AR and Military Type Rifles
A Ban on All Semiautomatic Rifles
A Ban on All Magazines over 10 Rounds, Rifle and Handgun
A Ban on All Handguns and Rifles
A Ban on Bulk Sales of Ammunition (No more than 200 rounds per month)
A roll back on All Gun Laws Nationwide
Don't Care
How about A Ban on murder? Oh wait, that ban has already existed for thousands of years but some people choose to ignore it.
You have to remember that any time you put a ban on anything, an underground market will materialize.
Either we need to return to the original intention of the 2nd Amendment, or it needs to be repealed.
The original intent of the Second Amendment was that legal citizens could posses arms that were equivalent to the government which could possibly become tyrannical. Therefore we'd be allowed tanks, bombs, armed aircraft, nuclear weapons, full auto rifles, etc.
We have thousands of gun laws on the Federal, State, and Local levels. We don't need more as criminals will just ignore those as well.
Instead of talking bans of anything that would only affect the law abiding why can't we have a ban on murders in detroit of chicago? I think we need common sense laws that will prevent murder.
This weekend we will see more gun related deaths from those 2 cities then we had in Vegas. I don't understand the gun grabbing Dems. They go nuts when 50 mostly white people are murdered but when 50 mostly black people are shot on any given weekend it is not even news worthy? Black lives matter as much as all lives but what is going on here?
I say we ban guns in the hands of criminals and then when that is done we can talk about limiting the Rights of the law abiding.
The original intent of the Second Amendment was that legal citizens could posses arms that were equivalent to the government which could possibly become tyrannical. Therefore we'd be allowed tanks, bombs, armed aircraft, nuclear weapons, full auto rifles, etc.
Nope, that wasn't the intention. The founders never intended ordinary citizens to have military grade weapons. They intended well regulated state militias to be able to use muskets and other weapons of the day to protect the individual states.
The Founders absolutely never imagined the power that guns would have in modern times, and they never would have approved of individual citizens collecting 50 semi and automatic weapons to gun down concerts.
That is not the original intention of the 2nd Amendment, and the current state of this country would absolutely be opposed by the Founders. You are wrong.
And lol at individual citizens having nuclear weapons. What a ridiculous notion. So instead of the idiot in Vegas murdering 59 people, he can destroy New York City and 22 million.
None. Unless rollback means abolish all gun laws. that I can support
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.
The Gun Debate is Asinine, Asiten, Asieleven.........
Yet the most foolish of idiotic claims as to why people need these weapons, is the original argument behind the second amendment. The right to bear arms for the militia, to fight in the event we have a tyrannical government. Come on folks, get real. That idea was formed back in the day, when the government had pretty much the same weapons a militia would have. In fact, the militias were among the strongest fighting forces during the revolutionary war. You won't be able to fight against a tyrannical American military today with your assault rifles. Again, get real. Assuming Trump went fool and had full control over every aspect of the military, he could do whatever the frick he wanted to do. Do you have B-52 bombers in your back yard to fight against Trump? Do you have laser guided drones you bought at a gun show? Do you have naval ships, jets, stealth aircrafts, and the latest technology we don't even know about to take down Trump's army? HECK NO YOU DON"T!!!!!!!!!!! Stop being so ridiculous, it's insulting to anyone with a grain of intelligence. If Trump wanted to take away our guns right now, he has the military to do it. (Fox News always talk about communist countries taking away people's guns. As if they did it democratically)
