Well here is what i want to know... why do you need an assault rifle to go hunting when a bolt-action rifle is more accurate and better as a hunting weapon?
@Voltaire152 well if you want to know i will tell you. they are not for hunting. the right to bear arms is not for hunting either. its to hold the government acountable by giving the citizens the means to fight their own govt. read the 2nd amendment it says nothin about hunting. it basicly says that the people are an army too, or a militia. hitler had to first register all guns before confiscating them, and you know what happened after that.means to resist is critical for freedom
I'm pretty sick of culture being a catch-all excuse for any behaviour. You should have/have not guns because it either makes sense or it doesn't. Don't use culture as your crutch.
I really hate to use the old redneck, right-wing cliche (I'm neither redneck, nor right-wing), but you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers. My government did not grant me the right to have guns. Freedom cannot be granted. I own and carry guns because I have a right as a human being to protect myself and my family in any way I see fit. And because my Glock gives me a massive erection, that is the means of protection and recreation I have chosen.
"corrupt" & "tyrannical "governments who ban guns because the other half of societiy want politicians to to ban them aren't exactly "corrupt" & "tyrannical" to me :|
A bit like how half of Americans want to be prowar and bail out the banks so you can't really call those politicians "corrupt" & "tyrannical"
As for me i believe gun ownership is too dangerous to be worth the benefit of defending myself from the government :P
@wowblackrock I was surprised to learn that Finland allows citizens have guns. And they have very low crime rates, even for Europe.
On the other hand, NYC does not allow guns, but their crime rates are higher than Helsinki's.
I have not seen statistically solid evidence that allowing guns to the public increases crime rates. I heard rumors to the contrary, but again no solid evidence.
You'd think that if guns did make a significant impact we'd have this facts researched and published by now
@ennot There are literally hundreds of studies on guns & crime rates & none of them show increased violent crime rates with increased gun ownership. They actually show slightly decreased violent crime rates. Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy, Article; Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder & Suicide is a good review of the body of criminology literature. If you are interested, I have been told it is online. There are literally 100s even 1,000s of studies but they are in criminology journals
I really do not understand the guns debate. If there's no data that shows guns contribute to crime, there's no basis for a change. If there's data that shows otherwise, then all the more there's no point in limiting handguns.
So why does the debate continue?
I don't want to think that the government just wants to remove the guns from the population, but what's the other reasons then?
@ennot Good question. I think some just have a fear of guns & refuse to believe they don't contribute to crime. I think they also just want some utopia where there is no crime so they go after guns thinking that will help & not realizing how they effect crime patterns in a positive way (less violence against non criminals) I think most of them mean well but can't think 2 steps ahead like if there was no guns criminals would simply go after the physically weaker like we have seen in the UK Cont:
@ennot I think that's the bulk of people against guns. Those that really believe they cause harm overall. On the darker side, I think there are some that want people more dependent on gov. Taking away your ability to protect yourself is a big step in that direction. Especially in future generations where it becomes natural to turn to the gov for all your needs,even personal safety. This allows gov to grow faster. I do think thats the minority but they also push the belief that guns cause crime.
im sorry when did it become a bad thing to own an assault weapon? if it was called say simply a gun with a higher rate of fire bigger bullet caliber then would it be ok? do most people really even know whats diffrent between an "assualt wepond and a semi auto? Also think about this if you take away the assualt weapons you would only be takeing them away from the innocent, criminals, gangsters, thugs ect. will still have them but then the civilians wouldnt. BELEIVE IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT
@Redneckintraining1 im pretty sure criminals go to gun stores and do all the paperwork. i mean how else could they get them? out of the trunk of a car? yeah right... stealing them? long shot (no pun intended)... other black market sources? no way. << and all of that is sarcasm. i believe exactly what you said
@Redneckintraining1 what? i thought they got a license and made their cocaine factories legally and grew pot legally... gawly-gee youre telling me that they get it from illegal ways? lol
Assault Rifles are a no-no. Handguns, shotguns, and single shot rifles are o.k but the last two I think should be for hunting and hunting for food not sport, because some magical fairy isn't going to repopulate the earth with deer.
@WhereIsReligion Ah ok. Can I ask why fully automatic firearms are a no-no for you? Do you believe they are more dangerous for example than semi automatic firearms?
@TheEnglishRedneck45 Well fully automatics are no-nos for me because they can be a bit for dangerous then semi-automatic weapons really mostly on the basis of they are a bit harder to control.
gun ownership was legislated to allow future generations of americans to resist tyranical governments ( like the english powers our founding fathers had just overthrown) yes, we have the right to bear arms for the government to face accountability by its citizens.. not for hunting, not even self defense- but for the defense of liberty from corrupt leaders. fear the government who fears its own citizens. hitler banned firearms in germany for the benefit of establishing his reich, FACT! the end
@daytonafreakboy Sucker, they let you have guns so that you THINK you have freedom. How is your crappy toy machine gun going to help when the government comes after you in a helecopter gunship ? It fucking won't !
@daytonafreakboy Oh yeah sure, some redneck on his roof is going to be a match for helecopters and nukes yeah sure ! How about you stop allowing yourselves to be ruled by drug companies, Zionists and bankers, then you will have actual freedom, not just your token gun shaped symbols of freedom.
@MonsterMunchAreAce yes, the army is a lot more effective than rednecks with guns. But there are much more citizens than there are soldiers, and if they are armed they'll be at least reckoned with. Stalin did the same as Hitler - took away all guns after the revolution. Ditto some Japanese emperor versus samurai - I don't remember my history well enough to say which.
Your little Hitler 'fact' is wrong. (From the wiki 'Gun Politics in Germany') Hitler's 1938 law did the following:
1) Permits were no longer needed for long guns/ammunition (unlike the 1928 law).
2) The groups of people exempt from permits expanded.
3) People could own a gun from 18, not 21.
4) Permits were valid for 3 years not 1 year. So Hitler's gun policy became more American. If you say Hitler's policy is bad and his policy was lax gun control then...?
@daytonafreakboy yeaaaah except everyone just ends up using it on each other and leaving the corrupt leaders to slowly bum you up the ass and steal your savings
@daytonafreakboy And then you accidentally shoot your loved ones. Where's your freedom now? There's two sides of every coin and I for one know a gun does more harm than good
@PROTOGgouki Please just be quiet. Palin doesn't want to ban assault rifles so therefore she must want a culture of violence? That's the kind of ass-backward thinking that causes so much partisanship in politics. You're no different from the people calling Obama a Nazi. She has children and a grandchild. You can't honestly think she is pro dangerous and violent societies. If you want to disagree with her opinions, great, please voice them! If you want to be a slanderous ass hole then stfu.
What I meant was that there is a clear intention to promote a culture of violence when she said that the "war on terror" is a task from god. Yes, this may be compatible with her notion of being against the ban on firearms, BUT not when she said that war should be the last option in terms of international conflict ie. Pakistan.
There is the culture of violence I was referring to.
@llwayneio no. semi auromatic rifle with a wooden stock, really no different from the miliary "black' rifles with plastic stocks . the right to bear arms was written for self defense, civil defense, and defense from the tyrany of the government. not only for hunting deer.
@daytonafreakboy I could probably research this myself but I'm from the UK and you seem to know what you're talking about. Would a class 3 license be granted to anyone or would that person need a specific reason for having it. Also would a fully automatic weapon be used for hunting or would it be for a personal security function? Also does the assault weapon category exclude machine guns?
@enoxib any semi automatic firearm is basically an "assault weapon" - a term coined by anti-gun advocates. 'machine gun' is a generic term for a fully auto weapon - you can pull the trigger once, it discharges multiple rounds. a class 3 license would require safety training, criminal backround check, and a 150$ tax paid to the federal government. does not require any special need or function on the part of a private citizen. its a civil right they tax for cost of processing licensure request.
@enoxib FYI i dont own a class 3 license. members of my family have fought in every war since the american revolution. from vietnam to afghanistan, the consensus among the warriors in my family has been the same - full auto fire just isnt practical. a careful first shot with 1-2 quick follow up shots is what does the job. "spraying and praying" gives away your position to someone who is a careful shot, waste your ammo and leaves you with an empty rifle. not good fighting vietcong or taliban
Thank God someone understands. The funny thing is that all of the people who disagree might find out the hard way, and then at that point they are fucked. How do anti-gun people formulate such stupid illogical theories that have no factual basis. Maybe all of the gun owners should just hunt them all down, and make them wish they had a gun. haha jk sorta
Since posting that comment my feelings for gun rights have solidified. I was driving home from my friends house when a gang hit was executed. 7 men shot up a car and turned fire on my friends and me. I sped off. It was all I could do. I felt hopeless. My friends nearly died in his yard. We were fortunate enough to be unharmed, three others from what I understood, went to the hospital in body bags. I can't say if I had a weapon I would have made much difference, but at least *some* difference.
@Goodspittin That sounds like a situation where a weapon would not actually help. a] You were obviously outnumbered. b] You didn't see them coming. It's a bit unclear whether you were a target, or incidental. I can't tell if you mean they shot AT a car, or if you mean they sped up in a car. You might have been able to return fire, but only since you were not hit. At which point you might have hit a bystander, as they might have.. not a good idea.
They ran from across the street and fired on a car then on my friends who were standing in the street in front of his house as I was pulling away. There was no one else around for blocks. Realistically, not much time to react. Morally, an eternity.
I love how people formulate ideas on this subject when they have no knowledge of what they are talking about. "Gun's are bad, but I have no idea why, or anything logical to back up with statement". Fucking idiots. I don't know what's more annoying, the fact that these people influence legislature, or just the fact that there are this many ignornant & stupid people in the world. READ A FUCKING BOOK!
Anyone who understands this concept, I offer a big THANK YOU for being intelligent.
"if you can buy a gun at a department store it proves how accessible guns are to everyone." This is not a point that has any validity. Different states have different requirements. It makes no difference if you buy your shotgun at a specialty shop or a Wal-Mart. The legal requirements are the same in that state. Why would it be considered reasonable to demand you only buy from a specialty shop? Actually, many smaller cities like mine (80,000) or less just aren't big enough to support cont->
cont-->> a specialty gun shop. The main point I am making is really that either a Wal-Mart or gun shop, I buy legally and obey all laws. The criminal doesn't. Giving me more variety or making it more convenient for me to purchase is not what the public has to fear...it is the criminal, who doesn't buy from a Wal-Mart, gun shop or from individuals (legally) We need to punish the criminal, not the law abiding citizen like myself. Cheers !!!
Wow, she actually does have a brain. Anyone who disagree's with "assault weapon" ownership is very ignorant. Do you not realize that a true assault weapon has to be fully automatic? The term is so completely mis-used it's ridiculous. AR15's and AK's, etc, that you buy in stores aren't typically automatic. You need to have a special permit to legally own a true "assault weapon", and it's not even an option in most states.
For a weapon to be considered an "assault weapon" it MUST be select-fire capable....but the legal definition can be semi-auto with 5 affecting criteria. Either way...I don't like the term because it is intended to sound scary. The questions: What do you need this or that for or what "hunting purpose" does it serve are hardly legitimate criteria for what the 2nd affords me as a citizen. Remember... the foremost purpose of the 2nd is to defend the citizenry from an oppressive Government.
It's nice to hear someone with some sense. The bottom line is that it's a slippery slope, and it doesn't lead anywhere good. With the way things are going in this country i'll be damned if someone is going to tell me I can't own guns. Statistically there are a lot more dangerous things that guns out there, so why don't we just ban them all no? I mean I can kill someone with a butter knife if I wanted to, so lets ban that. More people die from drugs/alcohol every day. That's ok?
@Ben762x51 Ben: Some of the non-sense that goes on amongst the "ban this or that and I'll feel safe crowd" If we can only ban this rifle, because it looks oh-so-scary, I'll feel so much safer.....does that make sense? If you don't trust me with this big black scary gun....why would you trust me with ANY gun !?!?!? I mean, if I am such a terrible person to take the life of an innocent person, then why the heck does anyone think that a ban would suddenly fundamentally change me ??? cont>>
or that I wouldn't be able to get my hands on the scary gun. I could still get a rifle and do wrong. How about large capacity magazines? Ok, instead of shooting one clip of 15 rounds...I'll just shoot one, drop it, slap in another and resume the killing. Think anyone would be crazy enough to try to tackle me in the .8 seconds it takes to reload??? I'll bet NOT.
I'm a little fuzzy in the "semi-automatic assault weapons"-concept.
If a weapon's not full auto there is not much assault about it, is there.
WHAT IF the government decided to use weapons against its citizens. Citizens should have access to assault weapons on those grounds ? By that reasoning, as the state has access to NBC-weaponry, so should the citizens.
There is one established fact regarding weapons in society, namely that guns leads to violence. Effective guns to effective violence.
Here's to America's God given right (have to slip God in there somewhere) to self destruct. I advocate for every American to be issued a fully automatic weapon when they get their drivers license. The more (southern) Americans that have incredibly dangerous weapons the better I say! Go to it.
Crime is historically at an all time low. Stop watching sensationalistic news and you'll start to feel safe. King George is no longer threatening your freedom, and you no longer need to Bear Arms.. Any Kind of Arms.
4. To protect yourself from the government (who has all the guns) and defend your rights and freedoms.
Remember that semi-automatic assault weapons are LEGAL. I believe fully-automatic assault weapons should be legal, as well. After all, the MILITARY has them--what if the government tries to use the military against us?
@FighterDoken you have forgotten that not everyone who speaks english is from the US, and no assault weapons of any sought are able to be bought where I come from. If the government tried to use the military against you, pretty sure you'd die regardless of having fully automatic weapons or not, considering that the US military is the most powerful in the world, I'd think they'd have bigger guns than a fully automatic m16.....
@theJoeshomshow I think that everyone who posts things like this, ane all 3 people who liked it should have their address on the internet so that criminals have an opportunity to break into your house at 3 AM and give you a good argument for gun ownership in the 5-12 min it would take for police officers to arrive at your house.
@theJoeshomshow Can insurance unrape your wife, unrape your kids and unkill you? Why is it that you people always answer the same way? You kind of make it easy. It's a great answer, just allow people to take your stuff and use insurance to replace it. Don't have any sentimental attachment to anything, don't feel violated by people invading your home, and trust that all criminals are only after your wallet. It's enlightened. Statistics, insurance, probabilty have never saved one life. Guns have.
@jfletcher no you are right, more guns = safer community. Your logic is undeniable and bloody hilarious. haha god bless the USA and god bless me for not living there.
@theJoeshomshow Are we being so simplistic? Is the concern accidental shootings? Is the concern poor impulse control? Are you saying that more guns obviously means less safety? If so, gun shows and gun stores should be nonstop slaughterhouses, look at all those guns per person? OMG the carnage! If this is the level of your argumenation I suggest you read some history and some debates on the subject before joining one. You're a little behind.
@theJoeshomshow Mass shootings? More people die of Lou Garreg's disease than from "mass shootings". It's interesting that this is your point, since most of these "mass shootings" occur in "gun free zones". Funny, how that works isn't it? Where you see "man tries to go on killing spree at mall but is gunned down by citizen". Or at least pinned down until the police can arrive. Your chances of dying from being stabbed in the neck by a NED in Glasgow are FAAAAR greater than death by mass shooting.
@jfletcher Whats a ned and where did u pull Glasgow from? Still, there is a lot of mass shootings with powerful military style guns in your country and the only response is "well if we let kids in school carry guns..." retarded. seriously, if you can buy a gun at a department store it proves how accessible guns are to everyone.
@theJoeshomshow Nevermind, UK talk. I don't know anything about people who are arguing to let minors or retarded people carry guns. Where you purchase a gun doesn't have anything to do with the laws regarding who can purchase a gun. Like I said, I suggest you read some of the debate thus far, you seem to not really have any strong points. Looking forward to discussing this when you've had time to explore what others have already said, and the responses they've recieved.
@theJoeshomshow this is an ad hoc ergo proctor hoc argument. Gun deaths have also been down since THE VOICE was aired on Fox. You can show me no direct connection between a law to restrict who can legally buy guns, and how criminals use guns. They don't care about laws, they break laws, that's why we call them criminals. You may want to look at funding for police agencies and other trends for why gun deaths have gone down. Also, per capita gun ownership of citizens went up. Factor in that.
1. Most of the shootings that occur are done by people who are repeat offenders, and with guns that were attained illegally.
2. Shit happens, and punishing those who have done nothing wrong will not affect those who are commiting these crimes.
Explain to me how banning the legal purchase of certain fire arms will keep them out of the hands of people who buy them illegally? I'm so sick of hearing all these anti gun idiots. It is....
Right on. People live with false security. I doubt they know the average response time for a police call, be it a robbery, home invasion, attack....etc. The reality is that if you're counting on the cops to come save you, man you might as well just pray for a miracle.
I always tell people to imagine this situation. Two guys with guns break into your house. One is raping your wife, and the other has a gun to your head. What are you going to do? Make a phone call?
@Ben762x51 I concur Ben. Guns are nothing more than a tactial superiority. If we didn't have guns we'd be arguing about bows, or swords. All they do is give you a greater chance to control the situation. Allowing only the people who intend on breaking the law this tactical advantage is silly. They can also choose to come in numbers. How many people sleep in a house with five families? Now let's count elderly people and women living alone. Is a 5 foot 100 pound girl expected to fight off 5 men?
Your statement makes me just want to point out all of the idiocy of what you are saying, but what's the point. I've met hundreds of people like you, and you are all the same. You never actually know what you are talking about, don't understand the terminology, have no idea on crime statistics, and are never open minded. I'd say, "spend some time and actually do your research before you open your mouth and make a fool of yourself", but you won't. I'll just say this....IDIOT!
CBS News Reporter Says White House Screamed Swore at Her Over Fast and Furious By MARK HEMINGWAY
The Fast and Furious scandal, in which the Justice Department knowingly gave Mexican criminal gangs thousands of guns, just keeps escalating. The latest development centers around whether or not Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about having knowledge of the controversial gun trafficking operation.
Many people enjoy guns and are fascinated by them (such as myself). I dont want a ban on these guns because a couple of hoodlums in poor neighborhoods dont think before doing. Instead of making the guns illegal how about we stop ignoring the lower class, low income locations where most crime with these assault rifles and weapons are being used. If we cleaned up these streets we wouldnt have to worry nearly as much about crime involving guns. Stop ignoring people to where they start a killn spree
She immediately knee-jerked a spiel. The issue was that 70% of US citizens support a ban on +semi-automatic assault weapons+ Is Palin one of those that make up the seventy percent? She immediately spat a bunch of nonsense about hunting and self defense - Sarah, you twit. I don't give a flying frak that you're a lifetime member of the NRA. That's irrelevant. What the hell do AK47's, Uzi's and myriad other semi-automatic assault weapons have to do with hunting in Alaska? Let alone, self defense?
@Oilisdeathtomany The problem with a ban on "semi-automatic assault weapons" is the terribly vague definition, and how it could be unfairly applied, and the fact that many firearms which are far more dangerous do not fit that category. It is purely an attempt to play at people's emotions for political reasons, rather than truly address the complex roots of the problem of violent crime. People need to research and understand ballistics before they can competently discuss this issue.
@Oilisdeathtomany Oh . . . and "what the hell do AK47's, Uzi's and myriad other semi-automatic assault weapons have to do with . . . self defense?"
Ask any homeowner or shop owner who has had to face the mindless brutality of a riot, when the police are nowhere to be found. Or the terrified single woman living alone, when a violent intruder is smashing through her door in the middle of the night. Sometimes, innocent people need powerful help to even the odds against those that would do harm.
@FinnsDesign wrote "imaginary scenarios that never really happen"
Really?!? Riots never happen? Home invasions never happen? I'm just making up fake scenarios to make a false argument? You're a dumbass.
Nobody is suggesting that YOU should have these weapons. Just don't restrict someone ELSE from having powerful protection. And thank you for making my point again about ballistics with your "military grade" comment. That tells me you don't have a clue what I was even talking about.
Maybe I am just not following the news, but I can't remember the last time people had to use AR-15's to survive a riot, and if home invasions are such a big problem that, say, a .44 pistol or a shotgun doesn't provide sufficient protection I would seriously consider moving.
I am not saying these things don't happen, I am saying situations where you need semi-automatic assault rifles to protect yourself don't happen, or did the US just turn into Baghdad?
@FinnsDesign Do you understand why I keep mentioning "ballistics"? The term "semi-automatic" just means that it fires one round with each trigger pull. Do you know that there are "semi-automatic" shotguns? You can buy them easily from any sporting goods store, and they can do FAR more damage than an AR-15. AR-15 fires a small 5.56mm bullet (compared to 9mm or .44 pistols, or 30-06 deer rifles).
And if you start to restrict people only to what YOU think they "need", you are a fascist.
If you are hit in the chest or head by either a shotgun or an AR-15, the damage difference usually won't matter much.
Shotguns have shorter range, smaller ammo capacity and takes longer to reload. As such they are less dangerous in the hands of a psycho on a killing spree. At the same time they are unquestionably useful both for hunting and self defense.
If im a fascist for thinking certain weapons should be banned for civilians (nukes, RPG's, assault weapons++), so be it ;)
@FinnsDesign Let me paraphrase: "Situations where you need *rifles that fire a bullet each time you pull the trigger* to protect yourself don't happen". (Tell that to the family members of the mass shooting of your choice. There have been plenty of those in the news in the last 10 years. )
Tell me WHY people don't deserve the right to defend their lives and homes with the weapon of their choice. If you broke into someone's home and she pulled an AR-15 on you, would you stay or leave?
@FinnsDesign It's easy for you to try and dictate the rights of other people from the safety of your anonymous computer. To arbitrarily decide how they may or may not defend themselves against violent criminals, despite a relative lack of firearm knowledge and probably no personal experience facing the same sort of life-threatening violence is unethical. Clearly the AR-15 is not right for you, so don't buy one. But don't try to restrict someone else's right to buy one.
What the hell does an "Uzi" have to do with this topic anyway? Do you even know what one is? Or how it differs from the guns being discussed here? You yourself are guilty of a "knee-jerked spiel". Spewing shit that you don't even understand. Spend a few minutes with Google. LOL
Like I said before, people need to research and understand ballistics before they can competently discuss this issue.
@Oilisdeathtomany I suggest the following 11 minutes of education: Do a YouTube search for "The Truth About Semi-Auto Firearms " and click on the video that features Officer Leroy Pyle. It's bit boring, but very straightforward regarding the point I'm trying to make.
There is a saying,,, "Don't steal, the government hates competition." Same thing with assult weapons... "The government/military/police don't want competition" They would like nothing more than for us to weild flint-lock weapons against chainguns and mini guns. As long as the people have some of the same type technology, they can't just come in and take it all away from us so easily. YES! I believe they would. Delusional or not. I believe it just the same.
sarah jim-bob palin, she's a fucking spastic, republicans are fucking retards, go to school and stop fucking your brothers and sisters. She is the product of incest
I've heard many American's say, 'an armed society is a safe society'. But the worlds most hostile societies with the highest murder rates are all armed societies. Many American's say, 'If you want peace then prepare for war' but there is also a saying which goes, 'Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity'. I am not biased nor am I anti American, but I just lay some facts down. I'm living in England so were no perfect saints neither.
@skinnybuddhaboy Well with guns the use of them will happen, people make mistakes, and it is the person that wields it. Now we have to deal with these problems, by making our law systems and education systems more and more refined. But we deal with these atrocities so that a bigger one doesn't occur. We must be secure in our arms to make sure we are not oppressed and we can defend ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic.
I'm not a strong political conservative nor am I a Christian, but I do agree with people's right to be armed. Banning assault weapons is only gonna affect the law abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't care how many laws they break so that they can rob a bank. True, I would agree firearms are an "American" thing with a strong pioneering and explorational past. Banning weapons would not reduce crime, it'd just leave people defenseless.
Thou shalt not kill.. Unless self defense, death penalty, war, when pillaging neighbor villages whilst raping women and children, converting heretics and when ever the God tells you so.
I hate Republicans and Democrats, but you liberals are eventually going to disarm this country and that shit is crazy. A police state is already at our doorstep. The world is not all rainbows and unicorns. People in this country will always fear the government for good reason. Every year our Bill of Rights becomes more of a bill of privileges. While you people are calling 911 to get a cop to your house 10 minutes later (with a gun) I'll choose to protect myself like a real American and live.
@lilbeaveymac first of all, thats a fallacy statement, and if that is used as proof to show that gun laws don't affect gun crime then that says something about american society doesn't it?
I support the 2nd amendment from a conservative/libertarian point of view. But Sarah Palin should be the LAST person to be speaking on behalf of this view. Shes a wolf killer, disrespectful to a noble hunter, and I dont respect her as a person.
70% of any nation would likely support a ban on "assault" guns, "assault" knives, "assault" Tupperware. Assault is a crime.
90% of people would not support war, but 95% of people would support defense. That's why we don't have a Secretary of War anymore but do have a Secretary of Defense.
What does the term "semi-automatic assault weapon" mean? I do think Alaska should be the exception. Bears are f**king scary. Quoting the 2nd Amendment like it's bulletproof and perfect is a little lame.
It's funny the Tea Baggers aren't more aggressive about free speech or freedom to do with your body what you deem fit (abortions, etc). They act like the constitution is rock solid if you only look at the lines they want you to. Very typical of Christians, pick and choose what fits you, use it to oppress gays or some other people you don't understand, but then decide it "wasn't literal" when you have to do something you don't want to (millions of examples in the Bible). What a JOKE
Guns being "no longer needed...." Wow.. how would you protect any of your rights if your government decided to strip you of more of your civil liberties? The most important reason for people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to defend themselves from tyranny in government.
You're saying the thousands of gun injuries and deaths every year, record gun crime rates are worth tolerating based on some theoretical need to maybe, possibly one day need to host some sort of imaginary revolution?
Brilliant logic. Instead of putting warm clothes on this winter, I think I might set myself on fire instead. You know, in-case I ever have trouble finding my flash light.
lowest gun homicide rates in the world? Really?! Not only is that not true, the UK also has some of the largest crime rates in the modern world! Every human has the right defend themself. Government doesn't give you these rights.
@jecsse4 America is 5th from the top of the table, UK 8th from the bottom. So stop talking shit, go polish your gun, preferably when its loaded and you are drunk
@jecsse4 The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. At year-end 2009 it was 743 adults incarcerated per 100,000 population.
Guns are illegal in the uk without a license and due reason for owning a weapon, and as a result, we have one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the worls, sureley that means something?
Topics: THE NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION WHY YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENT BLOCKS YOUR EXCELLENT BILLS (See the last two paragraphs of Subchapter 8.2.4.1, Chapter 8, of Part Two.),
The Ideal Strongest Democracy (See Subchapter 3.1.2.1, Chapter 3, of Part One.), Governance, Others
Websites: See balancedway.yolasite.com balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
The idea is that semi-automatic, or full automatic weapons have no purpose other than killing people. If you want to hunt, use a bolt action. If you want self defence, use a shotgun. There is no need for automatic or semi-automatic other than over-compensating individuals that 'think they're fun.'
@KittJT2 On what are you basing that semi-automatic weapons have no purpose other than killing people? How about sport shooting? Target practice? Or simply owning one for purposes of protecting your property and intimidating those who wish to harm you or your assets. Most weapons can be modified to be fully automatic, even pistols. The minute you start putting picky little standards on your rights, is the minute you begin losing the right.
@K31TH3R *sigh* Target practice? If you really want good target practice you use a bolt action anyways, they are still the best. The only time you need to fire multiple rounds in that quick succession would be to kill a man. Protect property and intimidating? IE: compensating. There is no real reason why someone should need these weapons. Don't get me wrong, I myself own several firearms, and in the right hands, they are safe. Problem is that the stupidity of many invariably affects the few.
@KittJT2 Good target practice? What defines "good" target practice? Who defines sport shooting as a bolt action rifle? If we let the stupidity of a few affect the rights of everyone, then we are communists, are we not? A semi-automatic pistol can fire multiple rounds in quick succession, and then once again we are imposing restrictions and statutes on a constitutional right which will only hurt us all. If one right is questioned then what makes them all unquestionable?
Well here is what i want to know... why do you need an assault rifle to go hunting when a bolt-action rifle is more accurate and better as a hunting weapon?
Voltaire152 1 week ago
@Voltaire152 well if you want to know i will tell you. they are not for hunting. the right to bear arms is not for hunting either. its to hold the government acountable by giving the citizens the means to fight their own govt. read the 2nd amendment it says nothin about hunting. it basicly says that the people are an army too, or a militia. hitler had to first register all guns before confiscating them, and you know what happened after that.means to resist is critical for freedom
jimbobsports 1 day ago
She can pump my shotgun all day long... HEYO!
DrinkSkateSleep 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This woman has the typical face of an American slut.
Antimoron2 2 weeks ago
This 70% figure is a lie. No poll outside some website poll has ever said 70%. At least from a non biased poll.
dewpoint88 2 weeks ago
I'm pretty sick of culture being a catch-all excuse for any behaviour. You should have/have not guns because it either makes sense or it doesn't. Don't use culture as your crutch.
ottam 1 month ago
Comment removed
APocketOfTime 1 month ago
assault weapons part of the culture, hmmmpppphhh?
TheLtMajor 1 month ago
Watch Bill Hicks on guns. :)
kroese1870 1 month ago
Yes, you obviously need guns for your freedom. Look at Europe, everyone is enslaved there because they have no guns..
Guns only cause trouble (I'm not anti guns, I like weapons. but dont give me the bullshit that an armed society is a safe society.
vvillem9 2 months ago
THIS IS MY RIFLE THIS IS MY GUN THIS IS FOR FIGHTING THIS IS FOR FUN
Ragnarblackmane12 2 months ago
I need my AK-47 to kill deer lol
mcrencpt 3 months ago
I really hate to use the old redneck, right-wing cliche (I'm neither redneck, nor right-wing), but you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers. My government did not grant me the right to have guns. Freedom cannot be granted. I own and carry guns because I have a right as a human being to protect myself and my family in any way I see fit. And because my Glock gives me a massive erection, that is the means of protection and recreation I have chosen.
SeedsOfHatred 3 months ago
"corrupt" & "tyrannical "governments who ban guns because the other half of societiy want politicians to to ban them aren't exactly "corrupt" & "tyrannical" to me :|
A bit like how half of Americans want to be prowar and bail out the banks so you can't really call those politicians "corrupt" & "tyrannical"
As for me i believe gun ownership is too dangerous to be worth the benefit of defending myself from the government :P
wowblackrock 3 months ago
@wowblackrock I was surprised to learn that Finland allows citizens have guns. And they have very low crime rates, even for Europe.
On the other hand, NYC does not allow guns, but their crime rates are higher than Helsinki's.
I have not seen statistically solid evidence that allowing guns to the public increases crime rates. I heard rumors to the contrary, but again no solid evidence.
You'd think that if guns did make a significant impact we'd have this facts researched and published by now
ennot 3 months ago
@ennot There are literally hundreds of studies on guns & crime rates & none of them show increased violent crime rates with increased gun ownership. They actually show slightly decreased violent crime rates. Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy, Article; Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder & Suicide is a good review of the body of criminology literature. If you are interested, I have been told it is online. There are literally 100s even 1,000s of studies but they are in criminology journals
shananagans5 1 month ago
@shananagans5 that's what I heard.
I really do not understand the guns debate. If there's no data that shows guns contribute to crime, there's no basis for a change. If there's data that shows otherwise, then all the more there's no point in limiting handguns.
So why does the debate continue?
I don't want to think that the government just wants to remove the guns from the population, but what's the other reasons then?
ennot 1 month ago
@ennot Good question. I think some just have a fear of guns & refuse to believe they don't contribute to crime. I think they also just want some utopia where there is no crime so they go after guns thinking that will help & not realizing how they effect crime patterns in a positive way (less violence against non criminals) I think most of them mean well but can't think 2 steps ahead like if there was no guns criminals would simply go after the physically weaker like we have seen in the UK Cont:
shananagans5 1 month ago
@ennot I think that's the bulk of people against guns. Those that really believe they cause harm overall. On the darker side, I think there are some that want people more dependent on gov. Taking away your ability to protect yourself is a big step in that direction. Especially in future generations where it becomes natural to turn to the gov for all your needs,even personal safety. This allows gov to grow faster. I do think thats the minority but they also push the belief that guns cause crime.
shananagans5 1 month ago
I am a weapon and I find this not offensive.
Mrvidse 3 months ago 18
Derp derp. Derpa herp derp. Herpa herpa herp derp.
dummychaos 3 months ago
@dummychaos this makes MORE sense than what Sarah said
CLASHofTHElonders 3 months ago
WOLF HUNTER BITCH
kmesprtan 4 months ago
im sorry when did it become a bad thing to own an assault weapon? if it was called say simply a gun with a higher rate of fire bigger bullet caliber then would it be ok? do most people really even know whats diffrent between an "assualt wepond and a semi auto? Also think about this if you take away the assualt weapons you would only be takeing them away from the innocent, criminals, gangsters, thugs ect. will still have them but then the civilians wouldnt. BELEIVE IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Redneckintraining1 4 months ago
@Redneckintraining1 im pretty sure criminals go to gun stores and do all the paperwork. i mean how else could they get them? out of the trunk of a car? yeah right... stealing them? long shot (no pun intended)... other black market sources? no way. << and all of that is sarcasm. i believe exactly what you said
Willster690 3 months ago
@Willster690 lol ya none of that stuff is possable just look at drugs alot of people have those and store dont sell it
Redneckintraining1 3 months ago
@Redneckintraining1 what? i thought they got a license and made their cocaine factories legally and grew pot legally... gawly-gee youre telling me that they get it from illegal ways? lol
Willster690 3 months ago
I would have shown more interest in this had it said "Sarah Palin in front of Assault Weapons."
smegkun 4 months ago
Assault Rifles are a no-no. Handguns, shotguns, and single shot rifles are o.k but the last two I think should be for hunting and hunting for food not sport, because some magical fairy isn't going to repopulate the earth with deer.
WhereIsReligion 4 months ago
@WhereIsReligion And what do you believe makes a firearm an 'assault rifle'? The caliber, the furniture, the rate of fire, what?
TheEnglishRedneck45 4 months ago
@TheEnglishRedneck45 A assault rifle to me, is anything that fires at an automatic rate of fire.
WhereIsReligion 4 months ago
@WhereIsReligion Ah ok. Can I ask why fully automatic firearms are a no-no for you? Do you believe they are more dangerous for example than semi automatic firearms?
TheEnglishRedneck45 4 months ago
@TheEnglishRedneck45 Well fully automatics are no-nos for me because they can be a bit for dangerous then semi-automatic weapons really mostly on the basis of they are a bit harder to control.
WhereIsReligion 4 months ago
@WhereIsReligion Now that is very interesting indeed. Thank you for responding - not the response I was expecting! Thank you once again
TheEnglishRedneck45 4 months ago
@TheEnglishRedneck45 Yuor welcome and great speaking with you.
WhereIsReligion 4 months ago
gun ownership was legislated to allow future generations of americans to resist tyranical governments ( like the english powers our founding fathers had just overthrown) yes, we have the right to bear arms for the government to face accountability by its citizens.. not for hunting, not even self defense- but for the defense of liberty from corrupt leaders. fear the government who fears its own citizens. hitler banned firearms in germany for the benefit of establishing his reich, FACT! the end
daytonafreakboy 4 months ago 12
@daytonafreakboy Sucker, they let you have guns so that you THINK you have freedom. How is your crappy toy machine gun going to help when the government comes after you in a helecopter gunship ? It fucking won't !
SpankyRavenscroft 3 months ago
@SpankyRavenscroft the gov starts shooting civillians with gunships, people could always start to vote from rooftops
daytonafreakboy 3 months ago
@daytonafreakboy Oh yeah sure, some redneck on his roof is going to be a match for helecopters and nukes yeah sure ! How about you stop allowing yourselves to be ruled by drug companies, Zionists and bankers, then you will have actual freedom, not just your token gun shaped symbols of freedom.
MonsterMunchAreAce 3 months ago
@MonsterMunchAreAce hel (i) copters.
when the gov uses gunships and nukes on american citizens just be sure to let me know..
the kind of people who are willing to let the gov disarm them are your hope for the future? just saying..
daytonafreakboy 3 months ago
@daytonafreakboy Yes I agree, if you can't win an argument pick up on a typo instead, works every time.
MonsterMunchAreAce 3 months ago
@MonsterMunchAce not trying to win anything, nice attempt at deflecting BTW! umm, just answer the fucking question
daytonafreakboy 3 months ago
@MonsterMunchAreAce yes, the army is a lot more effective than rednecks with guns. But there are much more citizens than there are soldiers, and if they are armed they'll be at least reckoned with. Stalin did the same as Hitler - took away all guns after the revolution. Ditto some Japanese emperor versus samurai - I don't remember my history well enough to say which.
ennot 3 months ago
@daytonafreakboy
Your little Hitler 'fact' is wrong. (From the wiki 'Gun Politics in Germany') Hitler's 1938 law did the following:
1) Permits were no longer needed for long guns/ammunition (unlike the 1928 law).
2) The groups of people exempt from permits expanded.
3) People could own a gun from 18, not 21.
4) Permits were valid for 3 years not 1 year. So Hitler's gun policy became more American. If you say Hitler's policy is bad and his policy was lax gun control then...?
muffin8or 2 months ago 3
@daytonafreakboy yeaaaah except everyone just ends up using it on each other and leaving the corrupt leaders to slowly bum you up the ass and steal your savings
fuckem187 1 month ago
@daytonafreakboy And then you accidentally shoot your loved ones. Where's your freedom now? There's two sides of every coin and I for one know a gun does more harm than good
dss103 1 month ago
@dss103 you are a ridiculous person. using your logic- automobiles kill more people than guns, by far. ban automobiles! NO MORE CARS!
those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for saftey deserve neither..
daytonafreakboy 1 month ago
@daytonafreakboy
"This is what Americans actually believe."
QuadriplegicSurgeon 3 days ago
I find it hypocritical that when westerners watch chinese people eat fish and skin an animal alive they are quick to judge.
Yet some, like Palin, want this culture of violence, not just among animals, but also to people.
Yeay Palin.
PROTOGgouki 4 months ago
@PROTOGgouki Please just be quiet. Palin doesn't want to ban assault rifles so therefore she must want a culture of violence? That's the kind of ass-backward thinking that causes so much partisanship in politics. You're no different from the people calling Obama a Nazi. She has children and a grandchild. You can't honestly think she is pro dangerous and violent societies. If you want to disagree with her opinions, great, please voice them! If you want to be a slanderous ass hole then stfu.
titans091052 4 months ago
@titans091052 Sorry for being unclear.
What I meant was that there is a clear intention to promote a culture of violence when she said that the "war on terror" is a task from god. Yes, this may be compatible with her notion of being against the ban on firearms, BUT not when she said that war should be the last option in terms of international conflict ie. Pakistan.
There is the culture of violence I was referring to.
PROTOGgouki 4 months ago
isnt an assualt weapon overkill for hunting deer??
llwayneio 4 months ago
@llwayneio no. semi auromatic rifle with a wooden stock, really no different from the miliary "black' rifles with plastic stocks . the right to bear arms was written for self defense, civil defense, and defense from the tyrany of the government. not only for hunting deer.
daytonafreakboy 4 months ago
@daytonafreakboy Are fully automatic assault rifles illegal in the US? or is it on a state to state basis?
enoxib 4 months ago
@enoxib have to apply/ and be approved for, a class 3 license to own and operate a fully automatic weapon. it is a federal license
daytonafreakboy 4 months ago
@daytonafreakboy I could probably research this myself but I'm from the UK and you seem to know what you're talking about. Would a class 3 license be granted to anyone or would that person need a specific reason for having it. Also would a fully automatic weapon be used for hunting or would it be for a personal security function? Also does the assault weapon category exclude machine guns?
enoxib 4 months ago
@enoxib any semi automatic firearm is basically an "assault weapon" - a term coined by anti-gun advocates. 'machine gun' is a generic term for a fully auto weapon - you can pull the trigger once, it discharges multiple rounds. a class 3 license would require safety training, criminal backround check, and a 150$ tax paid to the federal government. does not require any special need or function on the part of a private citizen. its a civil right they tax for cost of processing licensure request.
daytonafreakboy 4 months ago
@enoxib FYI i dont own a class 3 license. members of my family have fought in every war since the american revolution. from vietnam to afghanistan, the consensus among the warriors in my family has been the same - full auto fire just isnt practical. a careful first shot with 1-2 quick follow up shots is what does the job. "spraying and praying" gives away your position to someone who is a careful shot, waste your ammo and leaves you with an empty rifle. not good fighting vietcong or taliban
daytonafreakboy 4 months ago
@Goodspittin
Thank God someone understands. The funny thing is that all of the people who disagree might find out the hard way, and then at that point they are fucked. How do anti-gun people formulate such stupid illogical theories that have no factual basis. Maybe all of the gun owners should just hunt them all down, and make them wish they had a gun. haha jk sorta
Ben762x51 4 months ago
Since posting that comment my feelings for gun rights have solidified. I was driving home from my friends house when a gang hit was executed. 7 men shot up a car and turned fire on my friends and me. I sped off. It was all I could do. I felt hopeless. My friends nearly died in his yard. We were fortunate enough to be unharmed, three others from what I understood, went to the hospital in body bags. I can't say if I had a weapon I would have made much difference, but at least *some* difference.
Goodspittin 4 months ago
@Goodspittin That sounds like a situation where a weapon would not actually help. a] You were obviously outnumbered. b] You didn't see them coming. It's a bit unclear whether you were a target, or incidental. I can't tell if you mean they shot AT a car, or if you mean they sped up in a car. You might have been able to return fire, but only since you were not hit. At which point you might have hit a bystander, as they might have.. not a good idea.
JaytheOstrich 4 months ago
They ran from across the street and fired on a car then on my friends who were standing in the street in front of his house as I was pulling away. There was no one else around for blocks. Realistically, not much time to react. Morally, an eternity.
Goodspittin 4 months ago
I love how people formulate ideas on this subject when they have no knowledge of what they are talking about. "Gun's are bad, but I have no idea why, or anything logical to back up with statement". Fucking idiots. I don't know what's more annoying, the fact that these people influence legislature, or just the fact that there are this many ignornant & stupid people in the world. READ A FUCKING BOOK!
Anyone who understands this concept, I offer a big THANK YOU for being intelligent.
Ben762x51 4 months ago
shooting animals is part of a christian's life LOOOOL
NeroSNT 4 months ago
"if you can buy a gun at a department store it proves how accessible guns are to everyone." This is not a point that has any validity. Different states have different requirements. It makes no difference if you buy your shotgun at a specialty shop or a Wal-Mart. The legal requirements are the same in that state. Why would it be considered reasonable to demand you only buy from a specialty shop? Actually, many smaller cities like mine (80,000) or less just aren't big enough to support cont->
orangemod 4 months ago
cont-->> a specialty gun shop. The main point I am making is really that either a Wal-Mart or gun shop, I buy legally and obey all laws. The criminal doesn't. Giving me more variety or making it more convenient for me to purchase is not what the public has to fear...it is the criminal, who doesn't buy from a Wal-Mart, gun shop or from individuals (legally) We need to punish the criminal, not the law abiding citizen like myself. Cheers !!!
orangemod 4 months ago
Wow, she actually does have a brain. Anyone who disagree's with "assault weapon" ownership is very ignorant. Do you not realize that a true assault weapon has to be fully automatic? The term is so completely mis-used it's ridiculous. AR15's and AK's, etc, that you buy in stores aren't typically automatic. You need to have a special permit to legally own a true "assault weapon", and it's not even an option in most states.
Ben762x51 4 months ago
For a weapon to be considered an "assault weapon" it MUST be select-fire capable....but the legal definition can be semi-auto with 5 affecting criteria. Either way...I don't like the term because it is intended to sound scary. The questions: What do you need this or that for or what "hunting purpose" does it serve are hardly legitimate criteria for what the 2nd affords me as a citizen. Remember... the foremost purpose of the 2nd is to defend the citizenry from an oppressive Government.
orangemod 4 months ago
@orangemod
It's nice to hear someone with some sense. The bottom line is that it's a slippery slope, and it doesn't lead anywhere good. With the way things are going in this country i'll be damned if someone is going to tell me I can't own guns. Statistically there are a lot more dangerous things that guns out there, so why don't we just ban them all no? I mean I can kill someone with a butter knife if I wanted to, so lets ban that. More people die from drugs/alcohol every day. That's ok?
Ben762x51 4 months ago
@Ben762x51 Ben: Some of the non-sense that goes on amongst the "ban this or that and I'll feel safe crowd" If we can only ban this rifle, because it looks oh-so-scary, I'll feel so much safer.....does that make sense? If you don't trust me with this big black scary gun....why would you trust me with ANY gun !?!?!? I mean, if I am such a terrible person to take the life of an innocent person, then why the heck does anyone think that a ban would suddenly fundamentally change me ??? cont>>
orangemod 4 months ago
or that I wouldn't be able to get my hands on the scary gun. I could still get a rifle and do wrong. How about large capacity magazines? Ok, instead of shooting one clip of 15 rounds...I'll just shoot one, drop it, slap in another and resume the killing. Think anyone would be crazy enough to try to tackle me in the .8 seconds it takes to reload??? I'll bet NOT.
Anyways, thanks for your response.
Cheers, Dave
orangemod 4 months ago
she doesn't live in Mexico. Where we have to put up with a neighbor with next to NO gun laws.
PrimericanIdol 4 months ago
Oh you know its all about... hunting here... Alaska...
zeekoprop 4 months ago
I'm a little fuzzy in the "semi-automatic assault weapons"-concept.
If a weapon's not full auto there is not much assault about it, is there.
WHAT IF the government decided to use weapons against its citizens. Citizens should have access to assault weapons on those grounds ? By that reasoning, as the state has access to NBC-weaponry, so should the citizens.
There is one established fact regarding weapons in society, namely that guns leads to violence. Effective guns to effective violence.
RaidDK 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's to America's God given right (have to slip God in there somewhere) to self destruct. I advocate for every American to be issued a fully automatic weapon when they get their drivers license. The more (southern) Americans that have incredibly dangerous weapons the better I say! Go to it.
roates 4 months ago
Comment removed
roates 4 months ago
70% wtf is he smoking, i need some
wlpitbull 4 months ago
Crime is historically at an all time low. Stop watching sensationalistic news and you'll start to feel safe. King George is no longer threatening your freedom, and you no longer need to Bear Arms.. Any Kind of Arms.
HENJAM48 4 months ago
WTF do u need a semi automatic assault weapon for?
1: If you need it for home protection, i would be wondering how much drugs you have in your home.
2: You obviously suck at hunting and want to cheat by using an m16 or something.
3: You actually want to kill someone, probably a fair few seeing this is an assault weapon.
theJoeshomshow 4 months ago
@theJoeshomshow You seem to have forgotten:
4. To protect yourself from the government (who has all the guns) and defend your rights and freedoms.
Remember that semi-automatic assault weapons are LEGAL. I believe fully-automatic assault weapons should be legal, as well. After all, the MILITARY has them--what if the government tries to use the military against us?
FighterDoken 4 months ago
@FighterDoken you have forgotten that not everyone who speaks english is from the US, and no assault weapons of any sought are able to be bought where I come from. If the government tried to use the military against you, pretty sure you'd die regardless of having fully automatic weapons or not, considering that the US military is the most powerful in the world, I'd think they'd have bigger guns than a fully automatic m16.....
theJoeshomshow 4 months ago
@theJoeshomshow a pistol is a semi automatic gun
dixienormasXXL 4 months ago
@dixienormasXXL well when the hell do u need one of them anyway?
theJoeshomshow 4 months ago
@theJoeshomshow I think that everyone who posts things like this, ane all 3 people who liked it should have their address on the internet so that criminals have an opportunity to break into your house at 3 AM and give you a good argument for gun ownership in the 5-12 min it would take for police officers to arrive at your house.
jfletcher 4 months ago
@jfletcher I think the criminals would give you a good argument for having insurance........its cheaper and no one dies.
theJoeshomshow 4 months ago
@theJoeshomshow Can insurance unrape your wife, unrape your kids and unkill you? Why is it that you people always answer the same way? You kind of make it easy. It's a great answer, just allow people to take your stuff and use insurance to replace it. Don't have any sentimental attachment to anything, don't feel violated by people invading your home, and trust that all criminals are only after your wallet. It's enlightened. Statistics, insurance, probabilty have never saved one life. Guns have.
jfletcher 4 months ago
@jfletcher no you are right, more guns = safer community. Your logic is undeniable and bloody hilarious. haha god bless the USA and god bless me for not living there.
theJoeshomshow 4 months ago
@theJoeshomshow Are we being so simplistic? Is the concern accidental shootings? Is the concern poor impulse control? Are you saying that more guns obviously means less safety? If so, gun shows and gun stores should be nonstop slaughterhouses, look at all those guns per person? OMG the carnage! If this is the level of your argumenation I suggest you read some history and some debates on the subject before joining one. You're a little behind.
jfletcher 4 months ago
@jfletcher Im just going on how many mass shootings seem to occur in your country.
theJoeshomshow 4 months ago
@theJoeshomshow Mass shootings? More people die of Lou Garreg's disease than from "mass shootings". It's interesting that this is your point, since most of these "mass shootings" occur in "gun free zones". Funny, how that works isn't it? Where you see "man tries to go on killing spree at mall but is gunned down by citizen". Or at least pinned down until the police can arrive. Your chances of dying from being stabbed in the neck by a NED in Glasgow are FAAAAR greater than death by mass shooting.
jfletcher 4 months ago
@jfletcher Whats a ned and where did u pull Glasgow from? Still, there is a lot of mass shootings with powerful military style guns in your country and the only response is "well if we let kids in school carry guns..." retarded. seriously, if you can buy a gun at a department store it proves how accessible guns are to everyone.
theJoeshomshow 4 months ago
@theJoeshomshow Nevermind, UK talk. I don't know anything about people who are arguing to let minors or retarded people carry guns. Where you purchase a gun doesn't have anything to do with the laws regarding who can purchase a gun. Like I said, I suggest you read some of the debate thus far, you seem to not really have any strong points. Looking forward to discussing this when you've had time to explore what others have already said, and the responses they've recieved.
jfletcher 4 months ago
@jfletcher gun deaths have either been level or decreased the least few decades since stricter gun control measures were put in place
theJoeshomshow 4 months ago
@theJoeshomshow this is an ad hoc ergo proctor hoc argument. Gun deaths have also been down since THE VOICE was aired on Fox. You can show me no direct connection between a law to restrict who can legally buy guns, and how criminals use guns. They don't care about laws, they break laws, that's why we call them criminals. You may want to look at funding for police agencies and other trends for why gun deaths have gone down. Also, per capita gun ownership of citizens went up. Factor in that.
jfletcher 4 months ago
@theJoeshomshow
You fail to realize two things....
1. Most of the shootings that occur are done by people who are repeat offenders, and with guns that were attained illegally.
2. Shit happens, and punishing those who have done nothing wrong will not affect those who are commiting these crimes.
Explain to me how banning the legal purchase of certain fire arms will keep them out of the hands of people who buy them illegally? I'm so sick of hearing all these anti gun idiots. It is....
Ben762x51 4 months ago
@jfletcher
Right on. People live with false security. I doubt they know the average response time for a police call, be it a robbery, home invasion, attack....etc. The reality is that if you're counting on the cops to come save you, man you might as well just pray for a miracle.
I always tell people to imagine this situation. Two guys with guns break into your house. One is raping your wife, and the other has a gun to your head. What are you going to do? Make a phone call?
Ben762x51 4 months ago
@Ben762x51 I concur Ben. Guns are nothing more than a tactial superiority. If we didn't have guns we'd be arguing about bows, or swords. All they do is give you a greater chance to control the situation. Allowing only the people who intend on breaking the law this tactical advantage is silly. They can also choose to come in numbers. How many people sleep in a house with five families? Now let's count elderly people and women living alone. Is a 5 foot 100 pound girl expected to fight off 5 men?
jfletcher 4 months ago
@theJoeshomshow
Your statement makes me just want to point out all of the idiocy of what you are saying, but what's the point. I've met hundreds of people like you, and you are all the same. You never actually know what you are talking about, don't understand the terminology, have no idea on crime statistics, and are never open minded. I'd say, "spend some time and actually do your research before you open your mouth and make a fool of yourself", but you won't. I'll just say this....IDIOT!
Ben762x51 4 months ago
@Ben762x51 @Ben762x51 If you've met hundreds of people like me then maybe your the one who's narrow minded? dumbarss
theJoeshomshow 4 months ago
CBS News Reporter Says White House Screamed Swore at Her Over Fast and Furious By MARK HEMINGWAY
The Fast and Furious scandal, in which the Justice Department knowingly gave Mexican criminal gangs thousands of guns, just keeps escalating. The latest development centers around whether or not Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about having knowledge of the controversial gun trafficking operation.
cinder544 5 months ago
Many people enjoy guns and are fascinated by them (such as myself). I dont want a ban on these guns because a couple of hoodlums in poor neighborhoods dont think before doing. Instead of making the guns illegal how about we stop ignoring the lower class, low income locations where most crime with these assault rifles and weapons are being used. If we cleaned up these streets we wouldnt have to worry nearly as much about crime involving guns. Stop ignoring people to where they start a killn spree
64notorious 5 months ago
She immediately knee-jerked a spiel. The issue was that 70% of US citizens support a ban on +semi-automatic assault weapons+ Is Palin one of those that make up the seventy percent? She immediately spat a bunch of nonsense about hunting and self defense - Sarah, you twit. I don't give a flying frak that you're a lifetime member of the NRA. That's irrelevant. What the hell do AK47's, Uzi's and myriad other semi-automatic assault weapons have to do with hunting in Alaska? Let alone, self defense?
Oilisdeathtomany 5 months ago
@Oilisdeathtomany
fun, thats what.
jinnwarior 5 months ago
@jinnwarior err..,I think the clue bus went that a-way. i.e. I think you missed it.
Oilisdeathtomany 5 months ago
@Oilisdeathtomany
probably, but i'm in support of hunting bears with ak47s, and bears hunting with ak47s.
jinnwarior 5 months ago
@Oilisdeathtomany The problem with a ban on "semi-automatic assault weapons" is the terribly vague definition, and how it could be unfairly applied, and the fact that many firearms which are far more dangerous do not fit that category. It is purely an attempt to play at people's emotions for political reasons, rather than truly address the complex roots of the problem of violent crime. People need to research and understand ballistics before they can competently discuss this issue.
rmcdaniel423 5 months ago
@Oilisdeathtomany Oh . . . and "what the hell do AK47's, Uzi's and myriad other semi-automatic assault weapons have to do with . . . self defense?"
Ask any homeowner or shop owner who has had to face the mindless brutality of a riot, when the police are nowhere to be found. Or the terrified single woman living alone, when a violent intruder is smashing through her door in the middle of the night. Sometimes, innocent people need powerful help to even the odds against those that would do harm.
rmcdaniel423 5 months ago
@rmcdaniel423
I love these imaginary scenarios that never really happen, but sound great when you are making an argument.
If you need military grade weaponry to survive in your neighborhood,then frankly, you might consider moving.
FinnsDesign 4 months ago
@FinnsDesign wrote "imaginary scenarios that never really happen"
Really?!? Riots never happen? Home invasions never happen? I'm just making up fake scenarios to make a false argument? You're a dumbass.
Nobody is suggesting that YOU should have these weapons. Just don't restrict someone ELSE from having powerful protection. And thank you for making my point again about ballistics with your "military grade" comment. That tells me you don't have a clue what I was even talking about.
rmcdaniel423 4 months ago
@rmcdaniel423
Maybe I am just not following the news, but I can't remember the last time people had to use AR-15's to survive a riot, and if home invasions are such a big problem that, say, a .44 pistol or a shotgun doesn't provide sufficient protection I would seriously consider moving.
I am not saying these things don't happen, I am saying situations where you need semi-automatic assault rifles to protect yourself don't happen, or did the US just turn into Baghdad?
FinnsDesign 4 months ago
@FinnsDesign Do you understand why I keep mentioning "ballistics"? The term "semi-automatic" just means that it fires one round with each trigger pull. Do you know that there are "semi-automatic" shotguns? You can buy them easily from any sporting goods store, and they can do FAR more damage than an AR-15. AR-15 fires a small 5.56mm bullet (compared to 9mm or .44 pistols, or 30-06 deer rifles).
And if you start to restrict people only to what YOU think they "need", you are a fascist.
rmcdaniel423 4 months ago
@rmcdaniel423
If you are hit in the chest or head by either a shotgun or an AR-15, the damage difference usually won't matter much.
Shotguns have shorter range, smaller ammo capacity and takes longer to reload. As such they are less dangerous in the hands of a psycho on a killing spree. At the same time they are unquestionably useful both for hunting and self defense.
If im a fascist for thinking certain weapons should be banned for civilians (nukes, RPG's, assault weapons++), so be it ;)
FinnsDesign 4 months ago
@FinnsDesign Let me paraphrase: "Situations where you need *rifles that fire a bullet each time you pull the trigger* to protect yourself don't happen". (Tell that to the family members of the mass shooting of your choice. There have been plenty of those in the news in the last 10 years. )
Tell me WHY people don't deserve the right to defend their lives and homes with the weapon of their choice. If you broke into someone's home and she pulled an AR-15 on you, would you stay or leave?
rmcdaniel423 4 months ago
@rmcdaniel423
It is possible to imagine a scenario where you need nuclear weapons to save your family, that doesn't mean we should be allowed to buy them.
Are you saying there should be absolutely no restrictions on what weapons we can buy?
If I broke into someone's home and they pulled a .22 on me I would get the heck out!
FinnsDesign 4 months ago
@FinnsDesign It's easy for you to try and dictate the rights of other people from the safety of your anonymous computer. To arbitrarily decide how they may or may not defend themselves against violent criminals, despite a relative lack of firearm knowledge and probably no personal experience facing the same sort of life-threatening violence is unethical. Clearly the AR-15 is not right for you, so don't buy one. But don't try to restrict someone else's right to buy one.
rmcdaniel423 4 months ago
@Oilisdeathtomany . . . and one more thing.
What the hell does an "Uzi" have to do with this topic anyway? Do you even know what one is? Or how it differs from the guns being discussed here? You yourself are guilty of a "knee-jerked spiel". Spewing shit that you don't even understand. Spend a few minutes with Google. LOL
Like I said before, people need to research and understand ballistics before they can competently discuss this issue.
rmcdaniel423 5 months ago
@Oilisdeathtomany I suggest the following 11 minutes of education: Do a YouTube search for "The Truth About Semi-Auto Firearms " and click on the video that features Officer Leroy Pyle. It's bit boring, but very straightforward regarding the point I'm trying to make.
Cheers.
rmcdaniel423 5 months ago
why she shoot dear?
british123able 5 months ago
There is a saying,,, "Don't steal, the government hates competition." Same thing with assult weapons... "The government/military/police don't want competition" They would like nothing more than for us to weild flint-lock weapons against chainguns and mini guns. As long as the people have some of the same type technology, they can't just come in and take it all away from us so easily. YES! I believe they would. Delusional or not. I believe it just the same.
Landotter1 5 months ago
she is a dumb cunt, she should kill herself
markra 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
sarah jim-bob palin, she's a fucking spastic, republicans are fucking retards, go to school and stop fucking your brothers and sisters. She is the product of incest
markra 5 months ago
I've heard many American's say, 'an armed society is a safe society'. But the worlds most hostile societies with the highest murder rates are all armed societies. Many American's say, 'If you want peace then prepare for war' but there is also a saying which goes, 'Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity'. I am not biased nor am I anti American, but I just lay some facts down. I'm living in England so were no perfect saints neither.
skinnybuddhaboy 5 months ago
@skinnybuddhaboy Well with guns the use of them will happen, people make mistakes, and it is the person that wields it. Now we have to deal with these problems, by making our law systems and education systems more and more refined. But we deal with these atrocities so that a bigger one doesn't occur. We must be secure in our arms to make sure we are not oppressed and we can defend ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic.
XxZULUOSCARxX 5 months ago
@skinnybuddhaboy Also i think it would be an educated society would be a safe society. Then the presence of weapons of any sort would be respected.
XxZULUOSCARxX 5 months ago
I guess we've become too lazy to have to cock a gun EVERY time we want to shoot.
MvnBkwrd 5 months ago
I'm not a strong political conservative nor am I a Christian, but I do agree with people's right to be armed. Banning assault weapons is only gonna affect the law abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't care how many laws they break so that they can rob a bank. True, I would agree firearms are an "American" thing with a strong pioneering and explorational past. Banning weapons would not reduce crime, it'd just leave people defenseless.
Termiteruler 5 months ago
Just in case there are 600 intruders a second you need to be prepared...
Marictdude 5 months ago
Thou shalt not kill.. Unless self defense, death penalty, war, when pillaging neighbor villages whilst raping women and children, converting heretics and when ever the God tells you so.
Spaghettimonster777 5 months ago
@Spaghettimonster777 I'm putting this on a bumper sticker, you little genius you.
SeedsOfHatred 5 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred alright... scary.
Spaghettimonster777 5 months ago
I have to agree with her. I mean it's our right to bear arms.
DisturbingRainbow 5 months ago
killing is a sport? does that include humans? because I'd like to kill a few idiots starting with george bush
llVIU 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llVIU your comment has been reported to the National Security Agency
dhide14 5 months ago
Why the hell would any one support the ban.
Our rights are in the constitution!
xeadm 5 months ago
the right to bare arms must be preserved but do we really need the avg american walking around with an ak-47 or a .50 cal sniper rifle
mike2005gto 5 months ago
@mike2005gto yes because the if we have them the government already has them...
lilbeaveymac 5 months ago
Comment removed
masterpence 5 months ago
@mike2005gto We all have a right to bare arms - it's called wearing a t-shirt.
masterpence 5 months ago
I hate Republicans and Democrats, but you liberals are eventually going to disarm this country and that shit is crazy. A police state is already at our doorstep. The world is not all rainbows and unicorns. People in this country will always fear the government for good reason. Every year our Bill of Rights becomes more of a bill of privileges. While you people are calling 911 to get a cop to your house 10 minutes later (with a gun) I'll choose to protect myself like a real American and live.
chicago6584 5 months ago
@chicago6584 and you need a assault rifle to do that? also why do you think the US has such a high rate of gun crime for a civilised country?
maarte2003 5 months ago
@maarte2003 not because of guns,sweden has gun rights and they have a low crime rate you idiot.
lilbeaveymac 5 months ago
@lilbeaveymac first of all, thats a fallacy statement, and if that is used as proof to show that gun laws don't affect gun crime then that says something about american society doesn't it?
maarte2003 5 months ago
Does she hunt animals with assasult rifles?
Holy shit does moose are screwed!!!
Rickymexmex 6 months ago
I support the 2nd amendment from a conservative/libertarian point of view. But Sarah Palin should be the LAST person to be speaking on behalf of this view. Shes a wolf killer, disrespectful to a noble hunter, and I dont respect her as a person.
TheMedievalMan 6 months ago
70% of any nation would likely support a ban on "assault" guns, "assault" knives, "assault" Tupperware. Assault is a crime.
90% of people would not support war, but 95% of people would support defense. That's why we don't have a Secretary of War anymore but do have a Secretary of Defense.
vioscios 6 months ago 2
@vioscios 70% of any nation would ban the word assault.
Rickymexmex 6 months ago
What does the term "semi-automatic assault weapon" mean? I do think Alaska should be the exception. Bears are f**king scary. Quoting the 2nd Amendment like it's bulletproof and perfect is a little lame.
MrShyguy0 6 months ago
It's funny the Tea Baggers aren't more aggressive about free speech or freedom to do with your body what you deem fit (abortions, etc). They act like the constitution is rock solid if you only look at the lines they want you to. Very typical of Christians, pick and choose what fits you, use it to oppress gays or some other people you don't understand, but then decide it "wasn't literal" when you have to do something you don't want to (millions of examples in the Bible). What a JOKE
AftershockedYou 6 months ago
Guns being "no longer needed...." Wow.. how would you protect any of your rights if your government decided to strip you of more of your civil liberties? The most important reason for people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to defend themselves from tyranny in government.
jecsse4 6 months ago
@jecsse4
You're saying the thousands of gun injuries and deaths every year, record gun crime rates are worth tolerating based on some theoretical need to maybe, possibly one day need to host some sort of imaginary revolution?
Brilliant logic. Instead of putting warm clothes on this winter, I think I might set myself on fire instead. You know, in-case I ever have trouble finding my flash light.
Apathyist 6 months ago
@Apathyist amazing comment. Should be at the top.
middy444 6 months ago
@Apathyist
Dang nigga! Fucking 5 star comment!
smartguy9765 5 months ago
@jecsse4 Yeah that happened but the US is still run by idiots with a military force strong enough to hold back a revolution.
Ludd3332 6 months ago
lowest gun homicide rates in the world? Really?! Not only is that not true, the UK also has some of the largest crime rates in the modern world! Every human has the right defend themself. Government doesn't give you these rights.
jecsse4 6 months ago
@jecsse4 America is 5th from the top of the table, UK 8th from the bottom. So stop talking shit, go polish your gun, preferably when its loaded and you are drunk
Rockster969 6 months ago
@jecsse4 The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. At year-end 2009 it was 743 adults incarcerated per 100,000 population.
zirkel1961 6 months ago
Guns are illegal in the uk without a license and due reason for owning a weapon, and as a result, we have one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the worls, sureley that means something?
startrekwarsmixguy 6 months ago
Can we all just agree that Sarah Palin is an idiot and move on?
Mozart1220 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: THE NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION WHY YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENT BLOCKS YOUR EXCELLENT BILLS (See the last two paragraphs of Subchapter 8.2.4.1, Chapter 8, of Part Two.),
The Ideal Strongest Democracy (See Subchapter 3.1.2.1, Chapter 3, of Part One.), Governance, Others
Websites: See balancedway.yolasite.com balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
The idea is that semi-automatic, or full automatic weapons have no purpose other than killing people. If you want to hunt, use a bolt action. If you want self defence, use a shotgun. There is no need for automatic or semi-automatic other than over-compensating individuals that 'think they're fun.'
KittJT2 6 months ago
@KittJT2 On what are you basing that semi-automatic weapons have no purpose other than killing people? How about sport shooting? Target practice? Or simply owning one for purposes of protecting your property and intimidating those who wish to harm you or your assets. Most weapons can be modified to be fully automatic, even pistols. The minute you start putting picky little standards on your rights, is the minute you begin losing the right.
K31TH3R 6 months ago
@K31TH3R *sigh* Target practice? If you really want good target practice you use a bolt action anyways, they are still the best. The only time you need to fire multiple rounds in that quick succession would be to kill a man. Protect property and intimidating? IE: compensating. There is no real reason why someone should need these weapons. Don't get me wrong, I myself own several firearms, and in the right hands, they are safe. Problem is that the stupidity of many invariably affects the few.
KittJT2 6 months ago
@KittJT2 Good target practice? What defines "good" target practice? Who defines sport shooting as a bolt action rifle? If we let the stupidity of a few affect the rights of everyone, then we are communists, are we not? A semi-automatic pistol can fire multiple rounds in quick succession, and then once again we are imposing restrictions and statutes on a constitutional right which will only hurt us all. If one right is questioned then what makes them all unquestionable?
K31TH3R 6 months ago