GUN CONTROL

[Vteckidd]

You want to take my hunting rifle away because some crazed person ive never met committed a crime in a state/city that i've never visited using an AR15?

I DONT WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING AWAY! WHERE HAVE I ADVOCATED ANY BANS ON ANY GUNS??????

Im just saying its NO SECRET that gun industry markets a product for a specific use, then when its used in that manner, they fall back on "ITS FOR HUNTING, ITS the 2nd amendment, its OUR RIGHT!"

For once id love to see someone say "yeah, that guy killed a bunch of people because he bought a fucking semi auto zombie killer, it worked, successful test". The guns are marketed as TACTICAL and MILITARY COMBAT. Do you know what that means? It means they are designed TO KILL PEOPLE, MASS PEOPLE, TACTICALLY, WITHOUT THEM KNOWING, OR WITH MAXIMUM DAMAGE/KILL SHOTS.

Just OWN UP TO IT. That is what that shit is made and designed for. DONT TREAT ME LIKE IM STUPID like people are hunting Pheasants with AR15.

[bu villain]

Most people have no desire to ban all guns. Even the president of the the Brady Campaign gun control group doesn't want to ban all guns. To argue against banning all guns is pointless because that is not a mainstream opinion. Most democrats would not vote for such a ban. The bill to allow guns in national parks was signed nearly unanimously and approved by Obama. If you think your guns are in any serious danger of being taken away, you are unduly paranoid.

[David88vert]

Most people have no desire to ban all guns. Even the president of the the Brady Campaign gun control group doesn't want to ban all guns. To argue against banning all guns is pointless because that is not a mainstream opinion. Most democrats would not vote for such a ban. The bill to allow guns in national parks was signed nearly unanimously and approved by Obama. If you think your guns are in any serious danger of being taken away, you are unduly paranoid.

How about the Cybersecurity Bill? THIS PAST WEEK, Democratic senators offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers - how is gun control related to cybersecurity?
The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

Senator Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995
You still think that she isn't after a total gun ban?

Do you forget that Obama had the DOJ looking for a way that he could take executive action, and bypass Congress on gun control just last year?

Here is the reality of Congress - there are lots for gun control and lots against. I hope that you are correct that we are in no danger of losing legal rights to guns, but it's clear that there are people in power that want to take them all away.
US Senate - GOA Senate Ratings For The 112th Congress - Gun Owners Of America
House - GOA House Ratings for the 112th Congress - Gun Owners Of America

[Sinfix_15]

I DONT WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING AWAY! WHERE HAVE I ADVOCATED ANY BANS ON ANY GUNS??????

Im just saying its NO SECRET that gun industry markets a product for a specific use, then when its used in that manner, they fall back on "ITS FOR HUNTING, ITS the 2nd amendment, its OUR RIGHT!"

For once id love to see someone say "yeah, that guy killed a bunch of people because he bought a fucking semi auto zombie killer, it worked, successful test". The guns are marketed as TACTICAL and MILITARY COMBAT. Do you know what that means? It means they are designed TO KILL PEOPLE, MASS PEOPLE, TACTICALLY, WITHOUT THEM KNOWING, OR WITH MAXIMUM DAMAGE/KILL SHOTS.

Just OWN UP TO IT. That is what that shit is made and designed for. DONT TREAT ME LIKE IM STUPID like people are hunting Pheasants with AR15.

It's not what you know, its what you can prove. My AR15 is a hunting rifle. Until i use it in combat or shoot a person with it, it's a hunting rifle. My ZR1 is a family car, the only reason it goes over 55mph is in case i ever need to rush my family to the hospital. Until i start getting reckless driving tickets weekly, you cant prove otherwise.

You know better..... or think you do, but its not about what you know, its what you can prove. You cant allow people to paint pictures based on what they "KNOW"...........

You're a rational person, so your point of view isnt that far fetched.... but if we allowed others to make decisions based on what they "know", the world could be a pretty scary place.

Christians "know" that Jesus is the answer to a happy life and that we should consider him in all decisions.
The NAACP "knows" that any crime committed against a black person was a racist hate crime.
BlankCD "knows" that the world would be a liberal paradise if we turned our lives over the government and let them take care of us.
Black people "know" that Obama is our best option for president.

so with that said.... you may "know" that i like AR15s because theyre cool and people drive zr1s because theyre pavement shredding beasts...... but you cant prove anything other than 1 is a rifle and 1 is a car, Both legal to own and enjoy.