Page 29 of 78 FirstFirst ... 1925262728293031323339 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 725 of 1930

Thread: United States Gun Control: Gun Control = Fascism Everybody!

  1. #701
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    unfunny location
    Posts
    1,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ldsman View Post
    There are plenty of gun laws already. Let's try enforcing those first, instead of adding more laws that will only affect the law abiding!
    All laws only affect the law abiding
    Pokemon isn't real, I'm sorry

  2. #702
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WizardTrubbish View Post
    All laws only affect the law abiding


    To clarify, these types of laws turn the law-abiding into criminals just for owning an inanimate object. Laws regarding murder, drunk driving, jaywalking, etc, require that you DO something before you are subjected to the court system. Gun Control laws don't. Remember, Millions of gun owners have harmed no one. Why are people trying to punish them? Are we limiting the other Rights "Just in case"? You might engaged in "X" so no more "Right to Assemble" or "Free Speech." Remember, it's for the children!
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  3. #703
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    unfunny location
    Posts
    1,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ldsman View Post
    Are we limiting the other Rights "Just in case"?
    You're right, we shouldn't limit rights "just in case" someone commits a crime. That's why there should be no airport security. They're just wasting my time "just in case" I'm a terrorist
    Pokemon isn't real, I'm sorry

  4. #704
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,342

    Default

    Take that up with the airlines.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  5. #705
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Can someone come up with a logical reason why stricter gun laws are considered "punishment" in any way? People can still get guns, they just have to do a little more. That's not a punishment as far as I'm aware.

  6. #706
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,342

    Default

    It's punishment when someone has to pay for a background check, pay for a permit, pay a registration fee, pay for lessons that may or may not be scheduled for your convenience and may be more of a brainwashing class than an actual gun class, pay any random administrative fees, etc. The person the laws are targeted at, the criminals, just ignore those laws.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...F9BRkM-;_ylv=3


    Sandy Hook Gun Control Proposals:


    The most notable include the following:
    •Mandatory background checks on the sale or transfer of any firearm, including long guns, at private sales and sales at gun shows.
    Enforced how? Most guns used by criminals are stolen or obtained from a family member who is clean.

    •Requiring registration, including a certificate of registration, for any firearm.
    This certificate should be issued after the completion of a background check and is separate and distinct from a permit to carry. Right. Register all the guns so the next time a Katrina happens, the gov't knows who has a gun and can take it at will. Or the local media can print a handy list for burglars to use when they decide to go into the weapons market.

    •Instituting a ban on the sale, possession or use of any magazine or ammunition feeding device in excess of 10 rounds except for military and police use. The commission recognizes that certain sporting events may at times seek to use higher-capacity magazines; however, the consensus of the commission is that the spirit of sportsmanship can be maintained with lower-capacity magazines.

    Magazines can be changed in seconds or even made in a garage workshop. Pointless to ban. Many people use the larger capacity mags and clips because its CONVENIENT!

    •Limiting the amount of ammunition that may be purchased at any given time.

    Who decides the amount? Many people go through a large number of rounds at a time. How does this prevent a person from stockpiling and then going on a rampage?

    •Prohibiting the possession, sale or transfer of any firearm capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading. This prohibition would extend to military-style firearms as well as handguns. Law enforcement and military would be exempt from this ban.

    How the hell does this prevent shootings?

    •Requiring that trigger locks be provided at the time of sale or transfer of any firearm.
    Trigger locks have been proven to be easily bypassable or flawed and only hinder people who may need their gun in a hurry.

    •Requiring that the state of Connecticut develop and update a “best practices” manual and require that all firearms in a home be stored in a locked container and adhere to these best practices; with current minimum standards featuring a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety (including biometric) device when they are not under the owner's direct control or supervision. The owner should also be directly responsible for securing any key used to gain access to the locked container.

    How would Conn insure that someone is following these practices? Would the government be given a list of people to do inspections on? Does this not bother people? Many of these containers and locks have already been proven to be easily gotten past.

    •Requiring that all classrooms in K-12 schools be equipped with doors that can be locked from the inside by the classroom teacher or substitute. These doors should also be compliant with building code, fire safety code and other regulations as required.

    Good idea. At least until the dangerous person locks the responders outside the classroom. Some regs are conflicting already. Enjoy figuring that out.

    •Encouraging the deployment of enhanced Wi-Fi in schools and the usage of IP-enabled cameras (to support response capacity). Special attention should be given to perimeter surveillance and areas of assembly.

    Ehh, seems to be "Big Brother" to me. Could others access it to cause problems?

    •Establishing a best practices guide for effective bullying and threat identification, prevention and response to be made available to all schools.
    Threat identification? Would that include anyone who disagrees with certain politicians? Congrats, the local mayor disliked your opinion of him and you are now banned from all public schools as the threat you are!


    Allow trained teachers to carry concealed if they wish. Too many shootings occur in "Gun-free zones" because the killer wants to kill as many people as possible before the police arrive.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  7. #707
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,342

    Default

    If we pass one more law, then we can control this problem!

    How about we address the mental health issue and not go after the people that HAVEN"T broken any laws.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  8. #708
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    No one complains about the fees involved in obtaining a driver's license. Fees that are instated in the interest of making sure that someone who is attempting to buy a deadly weapon is competent and serious is not a punishment in my eyes. I honestly can't see how any of those things is a punishment in any way. Maybe people would be upset about the proposed magazine ban, but if it's "pointless," why be upset about it?

  9. #709
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    No one complains about the fees involved in obtaining a driver's license.
    $20 or so dollars for a driver's license that is recognized in all states and lasts for multiple years is not the same as these ridiculus fees that, in some areas, can go over $1000.00 and last only a year. And that's if you get approved in the first place.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    Fees that are instated in the interest of making sure that someone who is attempting to buy a deadly weapon is competent and serious is not a punishment in my eyes. I honestly can't see how any of those things is a punishment in any way. Maybe people would be upset about the proposed magazine ban, but if it's "pointless," why be upset about it?
    These fees are used for that purpose. They are being used to limit people from getting a firearm in the first place. The magazine ban is a first step, a precedence. The magazine limit has been dropping steadily in many areas. Once it's shown that the limit doesn't work, the anti-gun people will add a new limit.

    http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2...-ill-play.html

    http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/

    It's all these incremental steps that affect a Constitutional Right. Once one falls, so follows the others.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  10. #710
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ldsman View Post
    $20 or so dollars for a driver's license that is recognized in all states and lasts for multiple years is not the same as these ridiculus fees that, in some areas, can go over $1000.00 and last only a year. And that's if you get approved in the first place.




    These fees are used for that purpose. They are being used to limit people from getting a firearm in the first place. The magazine ban is a first step, a precedence. The magazine limit has been dropping steadily in many areas. Once it's shown that the limit doesn't work, the anti-gun people will add a new limit.

    http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2...-ill-play.html

    http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/

    It's all these incremental steps that affect a Constitutional Right. Once one falls, so follows the others.
    You still have to pay for the driving test, the plates, the tags for the plates (annually, I might add), and insurance. Those fees add up and they're all related to owning something- a vehicle. And can you cite sources for your claim of how much all of that costs? Classes cost maybe $50 if even that. A background check might cost you $30. That's $80 toward your projected grand. If you have to pay fees and such on a car, why shouldn't you have to pay them to own a deadly weapon?

    I see them more as weeding out the people who aren't serious and responsible about gun ownership. If you're serious about your guns and are responsible, you don't mind paying fees to get what you want. Besides, considering people buy guns that are thousands of dollars, a few fees are chump change in comparison.

  11. #711
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    You still have to pay for the driving test, the plates, the tags for the plates (annually, I might add), and insurance. Those fees add up and they're all related to owning something- a vehicle. And can you cite sources for your claim of how much all of that costs? Classes cost maybe $50 if even that. A background check might cost you $30. That's $80 toward your projected grand. If you have to pay fees and such on a car, why shouldn't you have to pay them to own a deadly weapon?

    I see them more as weeding out the people who aren't serious and responsible about gun ownership. If you're serious about your guns and are responsible, you don't mind paying fees to get what you want. Besides, considering people buy guns that are thousands of dollars, a few fees are chump change in comparison.
    Problem is a car is not constitutionally guaranteed, a gun is, if you begin to stack up fees that impedes someone from engaging in their constitutional rights, those fees become illegal. For example I believe a state government tried to make the fee to have an abortion so heavy that many people could not get one, the Supreme Court then struck down the laws for those fees because it kept someone from engaging in a constitutional right.

  12. #712
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Problem is a car is not constitutionally guaranteed, a gun is, if you begin to stack up fees that impedes someone from engaging in their constitutional rights, those fees become illegal. For example I believe a state government tried to make the fee to have an abortion so heavy that many people could not get one, the Supreme Court then struck down the laws for those fees because it kept someone from engaging in a constitutional right.
    I think the point still stands considering Idsman still hasn't cited a source that states the fees would honestly be that expensive. It's not impeding it if it's not an outrageous fee. It's instated to make gun ownership safer, especially requiring training. Fees were not wanted to make abortion safer in any way.

  13. #713
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    unfunny location
    Posts
    1,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ldsman View Post
    The person the laws are targeted at, the criminals, just ignore those laws.
    Like they do every law? Criminals break the law, that's why they're criminals. If we shouldn't have gun laws because criminals won't follow them, then there's absolutely no need for any sort of law whatsoever.
    Pokemon isn't real, I'm sorry

  14. #714
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    I think the point still stands considering Idsman still hasn't cited a source that states the fees would honestly be that expensive. It's not impeding it if it's not an outrageous fee. It's instated to make gun ownership safer, especially requiring training. Fees were not wanted to make abortion safer in any way.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...y-got-her-gun/

    She paid almost $500 for just the chance. If she'd been denied, as many are, it would have cost that amount again to start over. And it didn't include the cost of the gun or the money lost due to taking days off for the classes. And DC has actually gotten a bit cheaper.

    http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/ne...e13ab9cd7.html

    $485 in this county.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...ted-with-guns/

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/?page=8

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...ammunition-dc/

    I'm still looking for the higher cost one. I know its out there, just don't remember where.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  15. #715
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WizardTrubbish View Post
    Like they do every law? Criminals break the law, that's why they're criminals. If we shouldn't have gun laws because criminals won't follow them, then there's absolutely no need for any sort of law whatsoever.
    We shouldn't add more laws that will, again, only impact law abiding people. It's a constitutional right to own a gun. Certain states arrest people at airports as the person is passing through because they had a gun in their checked baggage, or they arrest soldiers for owning an empty 30 round magazine in the wrong state.

    http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/bl...rol-summarized

    owning a standard magazine is now a felony in New York. It worse than abusing a child! How wrong is that?

    http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/bl...itous-is-cuomo
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  16. #716
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WizardTrubbish View Post
    Like they do every law? Criminals break the law, that's why they're criminals. If we shouldn't have gun laws because criminals won't follow them, then there's absolutely no need for any sort of law whatsoever.
    Enforce the laws already on the books. If a person tried to get a gun and violated the law regarding felons, charge them. Currently most DAs ignore them. Something like less than 1% of people who attempted to purchase a firearm illegally were charged.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  17. #717
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lost and Found
    Posts
    619

    Default

    I don't mean to offend any Americans by this, and I will remove this post as soon as possible if it's deemed off-topic, but I have to ask, why do Americans hold on so dearly to every single article in their constitution? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of democracy, but isn't it a little dangerous holding on stoically to century-old laws? Times have changed; perhaps it was necessary for most households to own firearms for self-defense back in the day, but national security has evolved from then, and unfortunately, so have the firearms themselves. I'm not very educated in American history, so excuse me if this is somehow offensive...

    In my opinion, responsible or not, there is no need for common citizens to own firearms in this day and age. What are they for? Novelty? Non-functioning gun replicas are fine by me. Entertainment? While I don't personally frequent them, I guess I'm fine with shooting ranges, although they'd have to be under heavy security.

    Regardless if it's guaranteed by some age-old law, it's safer to just do away with guns entirely.

  18. #718
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,342

    Default

    A Free Man is able to defend himself from an aggressor. A Free Man is able to defend his democracy. Owning a firearm is not just for "Self Defense" it is also for the use of defending the community during Natural Disasters like Katrina or during riots like the Rodney King Riots. Many looters and rioters were turned away by armed defenders when the police were unwilling or unable to respond.

    Just like at the crime rates in some US cities and remember, the police are NOT required to protect you and when seconds count, the police are minutes to hours away.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  19. #719
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    unfunny location
    Posts
    1,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Monochromatic View Post
    Regardless if it's guaranteed by some age-old law, it's safer to just do away with guns entirely.
    While I support gun control, I don't think just getting rid of guns would be much help. Restrictions on firearms is one thing, a complete ban is another, and it'll just lead to a black market. Besides, a ban would be impossible to enact in America, as there are so many guns, it'd be just about impossible to take them all away.
    Pokemon isn't real, I'm sorry

  20. #720
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Perusing the North Pacific.
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Monochromatic View Post
    I don't mean to offend any Americans by this, and I will remove this post as soon as possible if it's deemed off-topic, but I have to ask, why do Americans hold on so dearly to every single article in their constitution? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of democracy, but isn't it a little dangerous holding on stoically to century-old laws? Times have changed; perhaps it was necessary for most households to own firearms for self-defense back in the day, but national security has evolved from then, and unfortunately, so have the firearms themselves. I'm not very educated in American history, so excuse me if this is somehow offensive...

    In my opinion, responsible or not, there is no need for common citizens to own firearms in this day and age. What are they for? Novelty? Non-functioning gun replicas are fine by me. Entertainment? While I don't personally frequent them, I guess I'm fine with shooting ranges, although they'd have to be under heavy security.

    Regardless if it's guaranteed by some age-old law, it's safer to just do away with guns entirely.
    Because if you start picking and choosing which rights to keep or take away, what's to stop another one from being restricted or removed entirely if someone decides it's no longer necessary too.

    Obviously you don't see any reason for you to own a gun, it sounds like you've been raised in a gun free enviroment, and that's fine. It is well within your rights to live your life however you see fit. That's all us responsible gun owners, gun enthusiasts and hunters alike, want, the right to live our lifestyle unimpeded. And if we are responsible, law-abiding, and aren't harming anyone, there's no reason we shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. It's a cultural thing, and it's just wrong to have that right taken away or infringed by people who don't understand that.
    Last edited by Silvershark; 20th March 2013 at 1:15 AM.
        Spoiler:- My Custom Challenges:

  21. #721
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Monochromatic View Post
    I don't mean to offend any Americans by this, and I will remove this post as soon as possible if it's deemed off-topic, but I have to ask, why do Americans hold on so dearly to every single article in their constitution? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of democracy, but isn't it a little dangerous holding on stoically to century-old laws? Times have changed; perhaps it was necessary for most households to own firearms for self-defense back in the day, but national security has evolved from then, and unfortunately, so have the firearms themselves. I'm not very educated in American history, so excuse me if this is somehow offensive...

    In my opinion, responsible or not, there is no need for common citizens to own firearms in this day and age. What are they for? Novelty? Non-functioning gun replicas are fine by me. Entertainment? While I don't personally frequent them, I guess I'm fine with shooting ranges, although they'd have to be under heavy security.

    Regardless if it's guaranteed by some age-old law, it's safer to just do away with guns entirely.
    I can understand the confusion, but to look at the foundations of the 2nd Amendment and how it is needed for today, look back at what happened before it's creation. The Founding Fathers had just gotten done with a long bloody war with a country they believed was tyrannical and had imposed it's will unfairly on the people. They would not have won that war unless the civilians were armed. They were starting out on a new creation that they had no idea would survive or fail, or would even turn into what they had just fought against. To give the people a way to destroy their own creation if it were to become too corrupt and oppressive is the ultimate fail safe for this country. That is why the 2nd Amendment was created, and why it must stay in place.

  22. #722
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    421

    Default

    You want my take on guns?

    Here is my honest take on it.

    All you have to do is look at the crimes that are being committed with firearms in cities like Boston, New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. They have some of the strictest firearms laws in the country, and yet they also have some of the highest crime rates in the country. Figure it out.

    In the 1920s a ban on Tommy Guns was proposed. It did not reduce the crime rate. Criminals were able to gain possession of these assault-type weapons. People that choose to do harm will find other ways if they do not have a firearm. The founders of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wrote the Second Amendment to protect civil liberties.

    Due to the United States, China, and Russia selling millions of firearms to countries involved in civil wars, there is an extensive black market that will never go away. There is an estimated 500,000 fully automatic AK47s on the black market at any given time. The average cost of one of these rifles in Honduras
    is $400 USD. Guns have surpassed illicit drugs as an export from Colombia. Thinking that banning law abiding citizens from owning guns while
    leaving our borders open to cartels and terrorist cells is absolutely ludicrous.

    Criminals will always have guns and other weapons. Politicians are clueless to real life, they have bodyguards and other security measures. Criminals have always had weapons, illegal weapons including EVERY form of gun. Politicians would, if allowed, go door to door confiscating legal law abiding citizens guns, but notice they would never go door to door looking for criminals and their illegal weapons. Politicians and Hollywood are hypocritical liars. The Second Amendment was made to protect America from what government is doing now. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are very clear, and politicians are in violation of their oaths, they are basically traitors. Having guns is not a privilege, it is a God given right as an American.

    Plain and simple, it's a tool, just like a knife or a baseball bat etc. Stop blaming guns for the actions of stupid people. If the government seizes the public's guns we have no way of fighting back when this government turns to tyranny. Open your eyes, and get Obama out of power. It doesn't end there; arrest the bankers who run this country and give the republic back to the people for which many Americans fought and died. This is America, not Great Britain or China. Open your eyes before it's to late. Crime happens and will continue to happen regardless of laws put into place. I love this country, but I don't care for the government, especially the leaders of it. This isn't your country to make these decisions, and to Obama all I can say is good luck!

    If you illegalize guns might of well ban cars as well. It's the same thing. Drunk driver gets in a car and kills a family, the car nor the alcohol is responsible. The person driving the car is responsible, he didn't have to get in the car to kill them. The car didn't kill him nor did the alcohol kill him if he wouldn't of drove it he wouldn't of killed them simple as that. A gun's trigger doesn't go off on it's own, the person with the gun's finger pulls the trigger.

    tl;dr. Gun's don't kill people, if illegalized only criminals will have guns. The crime would not go down, people don't realize criminals get access to guns very easily. Criminals don't get them at gun stores. They get them from smugglers.

    Believe me, I know what's going on.
    My Soundcloud

    My ReverbNation

    Music & Musicians Alliance Club


  23. #723
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Work'n 'dem streets
    Posts
    48

    Default

    The only issue I see with banning semi automatics is that, according to Sam Harris, statistically they hardly cause any gun deaths. Sure, if you ended up banning them you would see less psychopaths killing children en masse, but you only pay attention to that because of the media. You don't pay attention to the myriads of gun related deaths in Chicago or Detroit. Reality is, if you want to make any sort of dent in gun deaths, just banning semi automatics and the like is barely going to be a blip on the radar. You're going to have to go after the lowly pistol.

    In my opinion, what would be reasonable gun control would consist of this,

    1. Psychological evaluations before purchasing any firearm.
    2. An inspection of your house to make sure you have a safe place to keep your firearms.
    3. You need to display to the proper authorities that you have legitimate reasons for owning a firearm. Hunting would be a good example. I know plenty of dirt poor rural folk that really do need them. They're used more as a tool to control pests and hunt for food.

    This sounds reasonable to me.
    Last edited by Crudelis ventus; 28th March 2013 at 12:13 AM.

  24. #724
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    421

    Default

    I agree but remember, anyone can get ahold of a gun. Just because guns are banned or specific classes of guns are banned doesn't necessarily mean psychopaths won't go on killin sprees. America is good at lying and acting in a manner to get what they want. They lie about reasons to get medical marijuana, lie to the doctor get it prescribed, they'll do the same with guns. Lie saying they want to go hunting when they only want it for self defense. Plus, you can't just slap a ban on guns and expect them to be harder to get because there's many ways for someone to get a gun. Black Market, gangs, Mafia, Mob, Cartels, etc. Mom and Pop shops open up gun selling in the back to special customers or friends, they then tell they're friends, those friends tell they're friends, etc. Thousands of owners do the same thing before you know it, the same amount of guns as before. On top of that, a pistol is classified as a semi automatic gun, semi automatic means 1 shot burst fully auto means 3 or more. M16, AK 47, M4, etc is fully auto and I believe there is no need for them. A shotgun is an assault rifle, hunting rifle is an assault rifle, assault rifle is just a fancy name they came up with. Revolvers, glocks, magnums, mili guns are also classified as semi automatic there's tons of pistols and they're all semi automatic so banning semi automatic means banning all guns which isn't right.

    The govt. can go house to house to confiscate guns all they want but wont get them all. It's impossible to get guns out the hands of everyone, chances are that one pissed of person in Florida or something will blow the agents head off for trying to take his gun. Florida responded to Obama's speech about the gun ban and it wasn't lovely. Something would happen not a world war or nothing but it would get bloody if they tried to take our guns away. They wouldn't even try to go to the hood, why? They know they'd get shot they're ignorant, idiotic, corrupt, hypocritical, ******* people. They own guns and have security that owns guns, they're a bunch of panzis if you ask me. Yea were gonna ban guns but you guys can't have none, yo fk you. With the black market today they wouldn't be able to get ahold of guns anyways, crime wouldn't go down either. They tried it once with Tommy Guns banned them thinking it would work, Russia smuggles them here what do you know, TOMMY GUNS AGAIN! The govt. is clueless to reality and that's why I hate them in general, you can't believe anything they say, can't believe anything on the news, can't believe anything actually, hell those school shootings could be hoax's, who knows! The govt. are corrupt minded people and will do anything for power, money, and to get what they want regardless of the consequences.

    As you said, with the amount of deaths in the city people don't pay attention to them. People don't realize cities are filled with gangsters and they own god knows what kind of guns, they kill for no reason at all. Some kid walks down they're street they pop a round in his forehead, some woman walks down the street they rape and execute her, it's what they do and they are sick minded people. I myself wish we could get the guns out the hands of these people but they will leave a ton of people dead with the snap of your fingers. I also have a gut feeling they're working with our govt. over profit anyways which wouldn't be a surprise. Gangs own cities, they own black markets, you can't take they're guns away. Same with the mentally insane people, if they want to kill someone and say guns were banned they would find a way to get a gun, so technically there would still be school shootings if they're even legit in the first place, honestly I don't know so don't quote me on this, America is corrupt from the beginning so yea. But I have no problems with guns, guns aren't the killers, the person is the killer. I could go on all day with this topic but lets save this for another day.
    My Soundcloud

    My ReverbNation

    Music & Musicians Alliance Club


  25. #725
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Perusing the North Pacific.
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShinyUmbreon189 View Post
    I agree but remember, anyone can get ahold of a gun. Just because guns are banned or specific classes of guns are banned doesn't necessarily mean psychopaths won't go on killin sprees. America is good at lying and acting in a manner to get what they want. They lie about reasons to get medical marijuana, lie to the doctor get it prescribed, they'll do the same with guns. Lie saying they want to go hunting when they only want it for self defense. Plus, you can't just slap a ban on guns and expect them to be harder to get because there's many ways for someone to get a gun. Black Market, gangs, Mafia, Mob, Cartels, etc. Mom and Pop shops open up gun selling in the back to special customers or friends, they then tell they're friends, those friends tell they're friends, etc. Thousands of owners do the same thing before you know it, the same amount of guns as before. On top of that, a pistol is classified as a semi automatic gun, semi automatic means 1 shot burst fully auto means 3 or more. M16, AK 47, M4, etc is fully auto and I believe there is no need for them. A shotgun is an assault rifle, hunting rifle is an assault rifle, assault rifle is just a fancy name they came up with. Revolvers, glocks, magnums, mili guns are also classified as semi automatic there's tons of pistols and they're all semi automatic so banning semi automatic means banning all guns which isn't right.
    FYI, Assault rifles are selective fire rifles, meaning they are capable of automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire at the flick of a switch; and are already banned by the National Firearms Act of 1968. Your thinking assault weapons, which is what politicians/gun sellers have dubbed semi-automatic firearms in an effort to make them sound more dangerous/cooler.
        Spoiler:- My Custom Challenges:

Page 29 of 78 FirstFirst ... 1925262728293031323339 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •