Best 7 Minutes On Gun Control you will ever see...

page: 2
33
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Does the name of the gun really matter? It's not the name of the gun that is doing the damage, it's the way the gun fires..

At the end of the day, that gun can still fire a lot of rounds quickly and has no use in civillian hands, you have other options for defence and hunting needs. The only reason someone would want one is because they look cool and badass.




posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
The simple fact is the politicians are (and have always) attacked the weapon class that provides us the core of our 2nd amendment protections; that is the weapons with which we could effect armed deposition of corrupt and tyrannical government.

There are many threads (mine included) which spell out the facts and figures of PDW murders. They are so small in the scale of the gun murder problem that statistically speaking the data would be thrown out as an outlier.

The agenda is as plain as the nose on your face, if you can see past the emotional rhetoric the media peddles.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Well, thing is the M16 is not a fully automatic weapon. The difference between an AR-15 and an M16 is the M16's 3 round burst. Technically, that's still semi-automatic. Unless you're able to press that trigger like a madman. It's not easy, trust me I've tried.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Good thoughts. Fact is that we have the right to own any firearm based on the founding fathers ideas. It is not about need but access. We, as citizens, should have access to any means necessary to protect our rights from our own government.

I am not need a full auto mil-spec weapon Who is the government to decide what I can have and what I cannot have? What if I did need one. Folks, ANY country that was disarmed has not ended well.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Good thoughts. Fact is that we have the right to own any firearm based on the founding fathers ideas. It is not about need but access. We, as citizens, should have access to any means necessary to protect our rights from our own government.

I am not need a full auto mil-spec weapon Who is the government to decide what I can have and what I cannot have? What if I did need one. Folks, ANY country that was disarmed has not ended well.


I believe Wayne LaPierre said exactly this at his CPAC speech. I would encourage every American that really cares about our Constitution and the principles that made our country great to join the NRA.

Here is his speech:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by liverlad
 


Who said one word about hunting?!? We need these weapons to adequately fight back an invading army, or to overthrow a tyrannical government as is our obligation as united state citizens. I know, I know. You think it's funny the idea of citizens fighting soldiers. But guess what? Just because you may not have the spine to fight and die for your beliefs doesn't mean the rest of us are as cowardly



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Mr. Virtual President does have a point. It is society that is violent but the guns. People have been conditioned to be aggressive and hateful forward each other. I think that it is better to focus on the reason why people kill each other with guns rather than simply take the guns away outright. Maybe certain mental illness could be grounds to refuse someone the right to have a firearm. You know, stop crazy before crazy happens.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by freedomwv
 


only those mentally ill who have been proven to be a danger to them self or others(its the legal term for it which is being clarifed under current legislation in the senate) you have to have been

a. committed against your will(you can check your self in and it dose not effect this)

b.have been ruled adjudicated(sp) mentally defective a very confusing legal term that they are not clarifying

c.have a documented suicide attempt on your record(that the police have access too)

d have made documented threats to harm either your self or others (ie billy says he really wants to shoot up a supermarket where the clerk always calls him retarded and he further goes into detail talking about not only how he would want to do it but how he has the means to do it.

being mentally ill does not on its self ban you from fire arms ownership and as a protected class of person in the united states makes it much harder but not impossible to pass laws affecting ONLY the mentally ill

my source for this info is the fact i own a great deal of fire arms legally including two class 3 fire arms (suppressor and full auto mac-10 that is a pos)and i have bi polar axis two you would think if the mentally ill were banned from possessing fire arms as you seem to think that i would not be able to own guns let alone class 3 which requires extensive background FBI background checks as well as permission from local law enforcement so sorry if i came off as hostile i just get tired of beating the dead horse and reminding people as much as they would like it the mentally ill are not banned from owning guns unless they have met the above criteria



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by riffraff
reply to post by liverlad
 


Who said one word about hunting?!? We need these weapons to adequately fight back an invading army, or to overthrow a tyrannical government as is our obligation as united state citizens. I know, I know. You think it's funny the idea of citizens fighting soldiers. But guess what? Just because you may not have the spine to fight and die for your beliefs doesn't mean the rest of us are as cowardly
But citizens are not fighting soldiers are they? They are all shooting each other!

I don't know why a lot of gun owners have these weird thoughts of America invading itself and going to war with it's own people. It's never going to happen.





new topics
top topics
 
33
<< 1   >>

log in

join