U.S. Gun Control discussion
 

This thread is to debate or bitch about current and proposed gun control policies in the U.S. so we're not shitting up the Gun Thread.

Thanks for making one for this.

F those who trying to take our rights away from us.:barf:

I stopped caring about what they are trying to do. Myself as well as most of my friends are good to go. I don't think that they are going to have the balls to collect any kind of gun if they do end up passing a ban and not grandfathering ppl in that already own. It'll be interesting to see them try it though. Just hope that we don't end up having to fight the gov't and another country that decides to help or just tries to take over.

I wouldn't put it past them. So many of those in Congress are drastically detached from their constituents...not to mention they are egomaniacs addicted to power.

All they have to do is put out an idea and the media marketing departments will take off and run with it and sell a story to the US and try to convince the citizens that armed Americans are a minority.

^ well I can see them doing that. But the fact is that there's a good amount of people that do have the guns and they are all generally around the same areas. So when it would come time for the gov't to try and take them, instead of only going at 1 person they're met with a whole town that's not giving up the guns. I for one will shoot anyone on my property asking me to hand over my weapons.

With you on that. Its just gonna eventually cause another Civil War if they try to take our guns. The main reason they gave us that right was to protect ourselves from the government, theyre only getting what they asked for.

Don't get me started in the discussion lol.

I happened watch Piers Morgan or whatever his name is yesterday..

Clearly Liberals keep pushing "why do people need semi-auto?"


It's not the need !! It's the rights that they are trying to get rid of...

You're exactly right. They are trying to take the weapons out of the law abiding citizens hands. They are our birth given rights and were written into the constitution to allow people to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. I use guns for sport and for self defense. As do (as per recent poll) 57% of Americans. Yes there were 11000 deaths last year due to firearms. That is less than 1% of our population. They fail to mention that this number (12000) is the total of all fire arm related deaths including cops using their firearm in the line of duty and citizens utilizing their 2nd amendment right defending themselves and or their families.

Watch this video. Its 14 minutes but well worth the watch. He puts everything into perspective perfectly.

Piers Morgan Gets OWNED By Ben Shapiro - YouTube

I will watch that after work..

Yesterday here in Portland, some 20s male broke into a house and assaulted his ex-girl friend and her boy friend with a hammer and kidnapped a baby.

I heard conservative radio report saying a deadly assault with a hammer occurs more than a gun related assault.

Should we ban a HAMMER??? or just a "Military style HAMMER"?

I think only registered tradesmen should have access to specialty hammers. I was surprised to see Home Depot and Lowes selling framing and roofing hammers. No regular person should ever need these aggressively styled hammers.

Regular civilians should only need Ball-peen Hammers. Nothing more.

What are you talking about, all the regular citizen needs is this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...pscc7f8266.jpg

Dang right..!!:bowrofl:

You know that could be very dangerous.. It could damage your ear drums as well as chemical consumption to your body, pinch point, and stabbing.

Biden is a fucking hypocrite but this idiocy is funny.



If shot guns are more deadly than "assault weapons" why are they trying to ban "assault weapons"?

I thought they patched that already...

That logic will never work with liberals.

Their end goal is to ban all fire arms, most likely with exception to black-powder.

So yes, ban "assault rifles". Then it will be "ban sniper rifles". After all, most states you can't hunt with a rifle, and why would you need .308 to target practice when you can get a .22lr?

Then shotguns will become the gruesome murder weapon - and we'll ban those too.

You'll have flint-locks and bows to hunt with - just like the Framers.

patch what?

http://i.imgur.com/I9qJwNW.jpg?1

My answer to the liberals asking "Why does anyone need a semi-auto?!"

We don't live in the wild west, criminals don't carry six shooters and bolt action rifles, our government doesn't either. It's 2013, technology advances and "magazine capacity" shouldn't even be in this discussion. That's like saying "your car can't have a gas tank that holds more than 15 gallons because a drunk driver would be able to drive farther. . ."

Bascially what the law makers are telling you is "You don't deserve to have 15, 20 or 30 chances to kill the motherfucker that just kicked your door in." Every firearms trainging course I've taken taught this one rule, that was to eliminate the threat. It might take 3 shots to stop a man, it might take 15 if they are fuck up on some shit. What's even funnier is the people who are telling you that you don't need this kinda of assurance are the ones walking around with with armed guards 24/7. . . out of touch much?!

On the topic of "assault rifles", this is a term made up by the media to describe any rifle that looks scary to them. It isn't a term used by gun makers, gunsmiths, gun owners, or law enforcement. For that matter any blunt object can be used to commit an assault, be it a baseball bat, steak knife, butter knife, rope, a dead animal, etc. So why don't we walk around talking about "assualt baseball bats"? Baseball bats are easier to get ahold of guns. . . why aren't they bad too?! Furthermore our 2nd Amendmant Right isn't to protect our love of hunting. But to prevent our government from turning on it's citizens.

Say it with me fokes,

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Meh...

The liberals argue that the National Guard is the "militia" and your right to join is your right "to bear arms".

As far as needing 15rds to kill an intruder... at that point you are adanger to your self and family. One shot, one kill.

You'll never win with these arguments.

My contention is, that even in a world devoid of crime, a utopia, l should able to own and collect my rifles and go to the range and crank off a few hundred rounds.

Why is it cool that in the name of public safety we can criminalize and demomize every gun owner as a homicidal maniac who only apposes gun control because they hate our President based on the fact he is black.

However, if a cop tries to frisk a gangbanger on a street corner, or if that cop stops a man caught speeding, and when he doesnt speak a lick of english the cop ask for some papers.... these "upstanding citizens" have just had constitutional rights shit all over.

Very good analogy.

Yeah, except the national guard was founded many years after the constitution. I don't think we should be forced to put our selves in harms way to protect ourselves from harm.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that's the liberal logic.

Personally I don't think the Guard should be allowed to leave their home state. There highest authority should be the Governor and not the President and the only way the respond to Federal REQUESTS is at the Governor s digression.

Are you saying this is liberalogic?

One shot, to the brain stem. . . sure, and good luck with that one lol, 3 to the core, if they drop, fine, if not, one to the skull. Running those drills are the most fun too, call em "3 n 1s" :)


THIS I agree with!

Uhh, that IS how it works...the only time the national guard deploys is if their governor allows it. Then they get paid by the state AND the Federal govt. It's commonly referred to as "double dipping" and its how the Feds entice them into doing it.

And see how well that flies in most states when your being tried for manslaughter or even murder.

Only took one shot to kill Travon... didn't go to well, an that's even in a gun friendly state.

Yes and no. As I stated they should be 100% independent of the Federal Government and not alloud to leave the state, ei: deploy overseas.

The States need to start taking back there sovereign rights. Example Guns and Drugs - that should be 100% States decision.

I also have to question the need for all these federal police we have. With modern communication its redundant and oppressive.

That little guy OWNED that F face!!!!! LOL

Agreed completely when it comes to the Fed police. It should be the US Marshal service and that's it. As for state sovereignty...the states have to quit accepting Federal funding, then they can tell the feds to go to hell. But as long as they take Federal tax revenue, the Feds own em.

Meanwhile in Russia..

http://minimatefactory.com/blog/wp-c...008/11/ba0.jpg

This isn't much of a debate when we all agree :) but yes the framers of the constitution would not be happy with where we are today. Separation of power and checks and balances were written for a reason!