Thoughts on gun control?

Question

Ok, I ve been thinking about this since Orlando happened. My opinion is that there really is no reason for people to have guns like an M16 or an AR-15 (or the Sig Sauer MCX, like in the shooting). I don t think it s ok for someone that just got out of jail or someone that was on a watchlist to be able to own a gun. And for the people with AR-15 s for self defense, why do you need that much firepower? Most people simply own a Colt M1911 for self defense; and when it comes down to it, that can do just as much as any other gun. What I mean is since many of these shootings have occurred indoors, if you shoot a guy that s 20 feet away that is shooting at people in the area, it should drop him pretty quick, much less give him time to shoot you first. All in all, I think criminals and the like shouldn t be allowed to own firearms without a serious background check, and high powered military weaponry have no place in civilians hands, or "armories" for that matter.

P.S. This is gun *control* not gun confiscation. You can still have your firearms, just not a god damn military assault rifle.

Answer 1

Simple answer: The M-16 is NOT in the same class with an AR-15, or the Sig as they are NOT assault rifles like the M-16. (An Assault rifle is a selective fire weapon issued to military forces.) The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite (Company who built them) and NOT assault rifle.



Long answer: Think about the BS being forwarded by liberals ( including Obama) who claim gun laws make for less guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them and then tie the hands of law enforcement because it isn't "politically correct" to profile! This individual was investigated as a possible problem by the FBI, but then given a clean background check by the SAME agency so that he could buy the weapons used! If he had been on a watch list as he should have been, he would NOT have been allowed to purchase the weapons. Of course there is also the security company for which he works, which has been proven to be involved in illegal alien smuggling, but not prosecuted because Obama told the FBI not to! See a pattern here? Disarm the honest citizens while allowing those who might be a problem to have whatever they want?



The existing laws are more than adequate, but law enforcement are NOT allowed to enforce them. Adding more that only will affect honest people doesn't take any guns away from those who aren't supposed to have them. Look at crime statistics in the U.S. and you will see that the highest crime rates are in the areas with the strictest gun controls and ALL mass murder attacks have been against unarmed groups in "gun free" zones. Do you honestly think that he could have killed all of those people in Orlando if some of them had been armed?



I have a simple survival rule for myself and mine: Do NOT go anywhere where there are groups of people and concealed carry is not allowed!

Answer 2

If we allow the government to ban stuff based upon what they think we need, where do we draw a line? No one needs a motorcycle, ATV, speed boat or snowmobile either. No one needs a car that can go over 80 or can quarter mile in less than 15 seconds either. ...... Due process, what you are talking about is denying a Constitutional right based upon a list that some paper pusher wrote up. No due process, no court hearing, no getting to face your accuser, some guy just stuck you on a list. .....the 223 is NOT a high power round, it was developed from the 222 Remington which is a varmit round. The 223 is not legal in most states for any kind of big game. Frankly, I would rather the nut cases use the 223 than the previous military rounds the 308 and the 30-06.

Answer 3

You really think known criminals are going to walk into a police station and ask for a background check for their illegal weapon? Wow, I didn't know people could be as stupid as you are.

Answer 4

"Thoughts on gun control"



look up

"The big lie"

Joseph Goebbels(NAZI minister of propaganda) in his diary, admitted he learned this tactic from American Progressives(Liberals)



"Gun control"

Has never been about controlling crime, it is about POWER & CONTROL



"We agree with Mao, that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun"

Valerie Jarrett, speaking on behalf of Barack Obama

Answer 5

I'll take your little rant disguised as a question in order. You've spewed an awful lot of bullѕhit to slog through.



"Ok, I ve been thinking about this"



Liar.



"My opinion is that there really is no reason for people to have guns like an M16 or an AR-15 (or the Sig Sauer MCX, like in the shooting)."



That's the opinion you've been spoon fed by the mainstream media. The truth is you have no idea of the difference between any of those three firearms and you've been indoctrinated not to care. Your perception of these firearms doesn't extend much past "looks scary."



"I don t think it s ok for someone that just got out of jail or someone that was on a watchlist to be able to own a gun."



You keep using that word "think". I do not think it means what you think it means. Being put on a watchlist means that anyone who has accused you, who has reported you to the right agency, can get your name put on a list you don't even know you've been added to, and cannot get off of because there is no appeal process. So all it takes is someone who hates you enough to be willing to lie for you to lose your rights.



For "someone who just got out of jail" indicates a conviction. Due process. The fact that you lump these two sets of circumstances together indicates, at least to me, that you either don't understand or just don't give a ѕhit about due process. And THAT's the problem. If you don't understand it, there's no way you can coherently THINK about it. Only regurgitate what you've been told, which would be nice if you didn't claim to be "thinking." If you had been honest and said, "This is what I was told to believe so I believe it," I'd be more inclined to listen and quite possibly attempt to educate you. But to claim you are thinking indicates a very basic dishonesty going into the situation...about the same as disguising a rant as a "question" for purposes of trolling.



But let's chug right along...



"And for the people with AR-15 s for self defense, why do you need that much firepower?"



First of all, it's not "that much" firepower. Second of all, you don't even know enough to quantify the term "firepower", and third of all, you do not possess nor can you co-opt the moral or legal authority to truly expect a response from your unreasonable demand.



Here's a clue, son -- Since you don't even know what you're asking, you won't understand my reasoning even IF I was inclined to attempt to justify my reasons to you. As I have said before, you don't pay my paycheck, you don't suck my diсk, you aren't in a position of legal or moral authority over me, so let me make this perfectly clear: I don't have to justify exercising ANY of my rights to you. Period. So quit asking -- you don't have the right to an answer, no matter how much you think you do.



"Most people simply own a Colt M1911 for self defense; and when it comes down to it, that can do just as much as any other gun."



False, and false. You absolutely do not know what the hell you're talking about. You've taken a common defensive pistol and claim it "does as much as any other gun." This indicates an incredibly shallow and ignorant point of view, with barely a wino's spittle of knowledge on the topic. Which means the emotional charge from your statement didn't come from a fact you know -- it came from propaganda you've been told. This makes your "opinion" as invalid as your "thinking."



"What I mean is since many of these shootings have occurred indoors, if you shoot a guy that s 20 feet away that is shooting at people in the area, it should drop him pretty quick,"



Yeah, SHOULD doesn't mean DOES or WILL. When there are documented dash cams of police officers hitting dirtbags who are trying to kill them with 2 and 3 MAGAZINES full of .45 and the bad guy is STILL up, mobile, and firing, your speculative argument becomes laughable at best, and straight-out falsehood at worst. And again, you are not speaking from knowledge. You are simply parroting someone else's propaganda.



"Much less give him time to shoot you first."



You have not been in a real gunfight. Nor have you been trained. So your opinion on gunfighting is about the same as a virgin on sex.



"All in all, I think criminals and the like shouldn t be allowed to own firearms without a serious background check,"



News Flash: The Orlando shooter went through TWO complete background checks for his firearms purchases, PLUS a background check to get the D license and G license each, PLUS another background check in order to work at a juvenile detention facility. That's FIVE background checks. Your statement is invalid because the FACT is the FIVE BACKGROUND CHECKS THE SHOOTER PASSED DID NOT PREVENT THE SHOOTING. Furthermore, he WASN'T a criminal before he went on a murder spree. This is the basic flaw in background checks -- a lack of prior behavior is not a legally reliable predictor of future behavior. Never has been, never will be.



"and high powered military weaponry have no place in civilians hands, or "armories" for that matter."



There you go with that "high powered military weaponry" crap. That's straight out of the gun control playbook. You wouldn't know "high powered" if it bit you on the genitalia, and to you, "Military" means "looks like a military gun."



Which again, invalidates your argument because #1 it isn't factual and #2 it isn't even yours.



"P.S. This is gun *control* not gun confiscation. You can still have your firearms, just not a god damn military assault rifle."



Guess what sparky? You don't get to decide what I can and can't have. Especially since you have proven beyond a reasonable doubt you don't know what you're talking about -- you have, however, proven your success at regurgitating propaganda presented by people who are intent on deceiving an ignorant public.



1) If you're not going to confiscate them, why "control" them? Especially when "control" never affects the criminals, who don't follow laws?



2) You've already indicated you lump the M16 together with the AR-15, even though they operate differently but merely look similar. This indicates a level of ignorance that tells me YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED to decide what god damn guns I can have, "military assault rifles" or otherwise.



So, let's recap:



1) You have revealed your position to be a fact-deficient propaganda stance

2) You demand moral high ground you have absolutely no qualification nor credential to hold

3) You are willing to usurp Constitutional rights based upon nothing more than lies, half-truths, and other people's opinions you have chosen to accept as your own.



So, my thoughts on gun control are this:



1) Gun control is a scam to shame an armed populace into disarming itself so the elitists and their special designees don't have to take casualties trying to disarm the populace forcibly.

2) The promises of gun control change every time they're debunked, kind of like the patent medicines of the 1880's to the 1920's - and they have not delivered on ANY of their false promises.

3) Evil elitist people will never stop trying to make the people they are trying to screw over defenseless.

4) Evil elitist people are also not above deliberately lying and obfuscating the truth to serve their own agenda.

5) And BECAUSE no amount of "gun control" actually "works", the elitists keep demanding more until it becomes confiscation. I cite as my primary examples the incremental control becoming confiscation implemented in the UK and Australia, which has been enacted to their populace's incredible detriment.



Those are my thoughts on gun control.



Come back with facts. Your conspicuously fact-free propaganda masquerading as opinion has failed this time around.



And finally, be careful what you wish for. You might find that the very people you rely on to do your dirty work taking away the guns from the general public are going to be the same ones who, after you've made sure we're the only ones with the guns, will load useful idiots onto boxcars at gunpoint with the same guns YOU guaranteed only WE had.



I'm looking forward to seeing the surprised look of betrayal on your face when you are one of the ones who gets loaded onto a boxcar after you have outlived your usefulness. Because that will be me and my brothers, with the guns. Because WE are the ones you're going to direct to make sure the "civilians" are properly "controlled."



And once we're done implementing your disarmament agenda, you will find that we'll be able to do whatever we want to YOU and the rest of you evil little mice-people hiding behind us. Because what are you going to do about it?



So go ahead. Push gun control. Put the people you've already trusted with guns in charge. You know, the same uniformed professionals that folks like you whine have too much power?



You ain't seen abuse of power yet until you've disarmed enough of the population.



So yeah, careful what you wish for. Me and my brothers are prepared to give you every bit of the tyranny you're demanding and deserve.

Answer 6

I don't know how to answer. Of course people with criminal records or open sympathy with terrorists shouldn't have an "assault weapon" as the AR or AK is commonly refered to. (Incorrectly BTW but that's just semantics.) Then again, I have 7 rifles that more-or-less fit that description. They couldn't be in safer or more patriotic hands.

Answer 7

You've been thinking, but apparently not very much.

People don't own very many M-16's or military-type firearms. Have you seen the hoops you have to go through to get one? Not to mention that (1) you can't get one at all if it was made after 1986 and (2) they cost five and six figures. That probably has a lot to do with why the number used in crime is ZERO.

A M1911 is fine, with extra magazines, for shooting at a few feet range, but even that close people tend to miss about 75-80% of the time. At 20 feet and more, it's even worse. That's why people want an AR or MCX for defense, even though neither is acceptable for use by the military.

Answer 8

LMAO! Another clueless little troll.

Answer 9

Allow me to make an analogy to focus the illogical nature of your argument. A Corvette owner drive 120 mph into a busload of nuns, killing them. If they would have only been driving 65...half of the nuns would have survived. By your logic, it is the Corvette's fault...and since no one NEEDS a Corvette that goes 120 mph, we should ban Corvettes, regardless of the millions of Corvette owners who drive responsibly and all the future Corvette owner who just like Corvettes and have zero intention of driving 120 mph into a busload of nuns.



Does that make any sense? Would you advocate that ban?

Answer 10

"I think criminals and the like shouldn't be allowed to own firearms without a serious background check."



See, this is what liberal propaganda does to a feeble minded person's brain.

Answer 11

Look AR-15 is a gun. It is a great gun and very reliable. It is not a weapon of war. Most are chambered in .223/5.56. It's not like it's shooting 20mm ******* cannon rounds. A gun is a gun. Just because it looks scary don't think it needs to be banned. I have a Lee Enfield that was used in WW2. It is considered a weapon of war. But it's not any more. No matter what a gun is a gun and I don't think any of them need to be banned. I think it is good how it is. And for Full auto people need special licenses so u can't just walk into a store and buy one at any time. You need a very hard to get license anyways.

Answer 12

Boring

Answer 13

My thoughts on gun control,



Meh, not for me I like being able to defend myself.



I HATE gun free zones, they tend to have the most shootings.



It's never about guns, it's always about control.

Answer 14

You may think what you think. However you may not force me to live under your misconceptions/

Answer 15

Another brainwashed sheep who believes he knows it all. Your so-call knowledge of firearms is laughably deficient and it is very obvious you know next to nothing about firearms. Your logic if it can even be called logic, is something only someone who has drank the gun-control kool-aid lies.



Every country in Europe have gun control, so please explain to me how shooting occurs in those countries? Please explain to me how the following were able to occur since every one of the country where they occur have much tough anti-gun laws:



June 23 2016, Viernheim, Germany, mass shooting with over 50 injured as I write.

June 2016, British MP Jo Cox, shot and killed, killer made his own gun which is illegal in the UK.

November 2015, terrorist attack France, 130 dead, 352 injured

August 2015, Thaly train attack, terrorist shooting thwarted by American tourist Spencer Stone.

January, 2015, Paris, at newspaper Charlie Hebdo shooting, 20 dead, 22 wounded.

February, 2015, Uherský Brod, Czech Republic, 9 dead, 1 wounded.

May 2013, British soldier Lee Rigby killed in Woolwich, England by muslim terrorists.

March 2012,Toulouse and Montauban, terrorist murders 7 (including 3 children), wounds 5.

Answer 16

So, whats the question, commie?

Answer 17

Not sure why people want to own guns like an AK-17. I grew up where many hunt and have many rifles in their closet. That's the same thing idiots.

Answer 18

I don't see how you are going to keep any kind of gun out of the hands of a criminal. It would be nice if we could get them from them but I don't have an answer to that.

Answer 19

M16's aren't comparable to AR-15's in terms of function, they are two different classes of weapons and regulations.



A M1911 is a semiautomatic pistol, so semiautomatic pistols are okay but not semiautomatic rifles? Also considering the fact that all rifles account for approximately 300 homicides per year where as pistols account for nearly 15k why are we targeting the weapons least used over all?



Lastly since 3D printing has been used to make recievers, the only part considered the gun, will it really stop criminals?

Answer 20

The second amendment is written clear. "Shall not be infringed", yet there are many infringements. Random acts of violence will never be stopped. Want to keep terrorists from shooting us? Keep them out of the country.

Answer 21

Here is the message you are portraying by your "opinion".

* Ignorance - What makes you think that anyone should consider your opinion of something you know nothing about, and are just plan wrong in their assumptions? For example:

--- M16s are in a different class than the AR-15 and are much more difficult and expensive to get and get approval for. Background checks are typically 6 months long.

--- Any one that just got out of jail for a felony or domestic violence or drugs is not legally allowed to purchase a firearm.

--- Home Defense/Firepower - Shouldered firearms (long guns) are easier for most people to handle than handguns. What is "Firepower"? The most common long arm for home defense is the shotgun, which provides significantly more power than an AR-15. The AR-15 shoots an intermediate round that is so weak compared to most hunting rifles that in most states it is not even legal to hunt dear with. Studies have shown that AR-15 rounds to penetrate fewer sheets of dry wall than even a pistol.

-- "Most people simply own a Colt M1911" -- FALSE. Many people own handguns. A majority choose handguns other than the M1911, and only a fraction those that do choose an M1911 actually own a Colt model.

-- Criminals are not allowed to own firearms, period, and ALL firearms purchased through a dealer go through a background check. As for "the like", what do you mean?

-- AR-15s are not "high powered" as I mentioned before. They are less powerful than the M1 Garand of WWII. Given that EVERY gun ever made has a military counterpart.

-- "military weaponry have no place in civilians hands, or "armories" for that matter" -- THAT is exactly what the British said when they confiscated guns in Boston and New York. The Battle of Lexington and Concord was defense against the British confiscating the armories the colonial militia.



* You are under the illusion the looks of rifle give it somehow has more killing power than other rifles or that these scary looking rifles are even involved in many homicides (they are not).



* You would trade away your rights and the rights of Americans for perceived safety by a government that has continually show itself to be inefficient and ineffective. You have no concept of due process.



* You are so confident in your ignorant hubris, that you want to change the meaning of words. confiscation - "the action of taking or seizing someone's property with authority; seizure." However you want to personally classify a firearm, saying I can't own something is saying you want to take it away from me and my descendants.



* Good gun *control* is using a good grip and stance, and following the rules of gun safety.

Answer 22

If you ever have 4 or 5 gang members break down your door to steal, rape, and kill you, you may wish you had the means needed to end it. I mean a bad result for those gang members. While you lament about Orlando and 49 defenseless people being slaughtered like sheep, consider this. In Tel Aviv Israel an armed citizen shot back. The killers were stopped with 3 dead, not nearly as many as Orlando.

* That armed citizen did by the way make one heck of a shot. Looked beyond 40 yards with his handgun, on a darkened street. Tremendous ! that's how to do it, darn good shooting.



** As the "talking heads" say on the news, this anti gun rant by government officials is all a ruse. We all know that. They need to distract you and us from the truth. They have failed time and time again to fight terrorists. So who exactly is directing the government cover up ? Are we really as dumb as they take us for ?

Answer 23

another miss informed sheep. ar's are not millitary assault weapons if they are not used by military in battle/ ingagement. you are not talkin about control but prohibition for civilian of whom on the most part abide by the law. if there were proper checks in place state with national levels in legal & medical data bases then these people wouldn't legally e able to obtain firearms. but it wouldn't stop them from getting illegally. it is criminals that are the problem law enforcement isn't doing thier jobs well enough to clean up the streets. so why take away a civilians ability to defend self when we know we can't count on law enforcement to be there.

Answer 24

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pcMRTdYdd7s



I made a video just for you

Answer 25

gr8 b8 m8

Go back to playin cowadoody and getting angry about the evil white racist officers doing their jobs

Answer 26

Ignorance in this case is not bliss... As rifles go, the AR15 is not that "powerful" it is also NOT an assault rifle. A M1 Garand is far more powerful, and also a semi-auto. And M16s are, for the most part, illegal. Just walk into a shop and ask to buy an M16. They will still be laughing 5 mins after your gone. MILLION of rifles like the AR15 / style are out there. They are less expensive to shoot for those of us who just like to target shoot.

It is already illegal for a felon to own a gun. And if you are wanting to take my semi-auto .223 rifle away from me that is CONFISCATION. As my lazy damn rifle has never killed anyone, I check on it all the time and it just sits there... I have even left the safe door open. It does not even try to get out. Lazy. BTW, gun control ONLY applies to LAW ABIDING gun owners, never to criminals that do the shootings.

Answer 27

I control mine well .................. thanks for stoppig BYE anyway.

Answer 28

You wanna know how silly you sound? You just said that a .45 caliber pistol and a .223 semi auto rifle do the same thing. If a 45 caliber pistol is just as good as a .223 rifle, why do you want to ban one and not the other? You do realize that handguns account for a vast majority of gun violence and ar-15's are barely measurable in the statistics right? Why would you ban the ar-15 and not another half dozen semi automatic hunting rifles? Oh yeah, because you believe the crap you are spoon-fed. Without accountability, there can be no freedom. You shouldn't be free to have an opinion because you aren't accountable for your own knowledge. People like you are a much bigger threat than any particular gun that makes you wet your panties.

Answer 29

when you grow up your opinion may change

Answer 30

like a lot of folks.... you have no idea what a slippery slope is.



My AR is no more or less effective a "killing machine" than a Winchester lever action... in fact- that lever gun in experienced hands is fairly impressive as a social equalizer.



When you decided a 1911 is about the same as any other gun for defensive purposes--- your argument take a Sh*t.... See folks who are motivated to mayhem on a felony scale don't reason as you think they should. Therefore... for a guy like me to mount a meaningful defense my ability to arm should equal or trump his.



As far as military weapons go.. (congress has tried that tack before) show me one type of firearm that categorically has not been in the US DOD inventory over the last 125 years... Colt and Smith&Wesson revolvers, just about every 'sporting shotgun" and all sorts of rifles from 22 rimfire to the BAR has been part of US military inventories over the years. So please tell your local Congressman or Senator how to filter that concept. The gun grabbers don't



Felons typically are forbidden to possess firearms. You may look at laws passed in 1934 and 1968... we have plenty of laws that should keep bad folks away from guns now. Every state in the country adds time to sentences when firearms are used in commision of a crime.



Read the Second Amendment US Constitution and think some more.

Answer 31

I have a few things to be said:

1.AR15s and M16s are not the same, a real M16 would require a federal tax stamp and pretty much flawless record.

2.I believe you have forgotten the point of the second amendment, it is not to defend ourselves from a robber or any other intruder (although that is an added bonus), it is to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. So, we need guns like AR15 and all those other scary black guns the media will have you believe are WMDs, to fight force with force against said tyranny.

3. At the end of your post you said "this is not gun confiscation", well, if you are going to ban AR15s and take them from law abiding citizens, then it is technically gun confiscation. If your mother took away your computer because she said it was killing too many brain cells, it wouldn't be computer control, it would be computer confiscation.

Answer 32

Idk

Answer 33

Who are you to tell me what I can own. gun control is tyrannical and doesn't work.

Answer 34

This hunter wants the same firearm laws that exist today

for hunters in Australia. The voting Aussie population

had the approximate gun laws of present-day USA and

with less depraved indifference of the NRA changed how

the legal system administered their rogues. The Land

Down Under requires gun owners to man-up if visiting.

Answer 35

it takes a helluva man to admit he doesn't think...

Answer 36

1. The AR-15 is not a "god damn military assault rifle." Its a semiautomatic, an assault rifle is select fire. Nor is it a so called "assault weapon."



2. I can have a 1911 for home defense. I can also have an AR, which is IMO better than a 9mm as it doesn't penetrate as much.



3. You know what the common occurrence in these shootings though? People don't try to stop the shooter. 50 people dead, and 53 injured, yet none stopped the guy.



4. Jail is generally for misdemeanors, prison for felonies. Unless the person is in jail for domestic violence, or a drug offense, then it doesn't matter.



5. The Orlando shooter was investigated twice, and he also worked as security under government contract.



6. Felons, those who were convicted of a drug charge, and those convicted of domestic violence, cannot own a gun. While I'm of the mind that they should if they did their time and turned their life around, that's not the case.



7. Assault rifles, such as the M16, are not legal for civilian ownership with the exception of anything made prior to 1986.



8. The AR being high powered is media propaganda. Less penetration than a 9mm, and capacity could be the same between the two depending on the magazines.



9. You think someone being shot at 20 feet away means they should drop quick? Not always the case. If using fmj (full metal jacket) ammo, the general rule is that it would just zip through the person. The jacket may fragment, but if it doesn't, it just goes through.



10. Ultimately, the 2nd Amendment wasn't about home defense or self defense, that's just a bonus that comes along with the right.



That being said, if you don't want one, don't get one. Leave it at that. Laws only apply to lawful abiding citizens, criminals will break the law anyways.

Answer 37

I hate these people trying to make guns look bad. I leave my gun sitting against a wall and watched it try to shoot a person and nothing happened

Answer 38

It is a constitutional amendment to have the right to own a gun. I agree that if you are on a watch list it should be harder to get a gun. The thing is though, if you wanted to ban guns, you must pass an amendment. Obama can't just pass a law

Answer 39

Umm, no thanks I'll own whatever gun I want.

Answer 40

You're talking about gun control, when the process that was put in place (gun control) clearly failed in this situation. M16's are largely unavailable to the general population. The AR-15 is an assault rifle, but it's designed for use by people who normally couldn't handle a rifle with that power. It's semi-automatic and I don't have a problem with people owning semi-auto weapons, do you? I didn't think so. Yes, the guy used a Sig Sauer version of the ar-15. Sig Sauer makes excellent guns.

Answer 41

We have more than enough laws on it already.

Answer 42

Just got out of jail? What does that have anything to do with anytihng? Someone arrested for a petty crime should not lose their right to own a gun.



Did y ou mean soemoone out of prison? BIG DIFFERENCE! Why do only stupid people have opinions on gun control. Prison means you got a FELONY. And y ou're already prevented from owning a gun at that point. So no a felon who got out of prison cant go buy a gun.



furthermore, because I WANT to own it. I dont think I need it, I WANT it.

I don't LIKE the 1911. I want to own something else. Duh.

Answer 43

Gun control is a knee-jerk reaction that completely misses the point when it comes to stopping the problem of violent crime. We should be looking to eliminate the underlying issues instead, which are systematic problems that require more work than any one policy can accomplish.

Answer 44

The military doesnt use AR-15 they use m-4



the reason I need/want my gun of choice is because I have a consitutional right to own one



what would you do if someone took away your right to have a facebook or a choice on if you are religious it would be viewed as unconsitutional... even thought they arent taking away your religion they are just saying you cant be muslim or what ever they choose because some idiot used islam as an excuse to kill people its not saying you cant have religion but you can only have certain religions



also they people that are on a no fly list havent been tried so to refuse them a right is against the 6th amendment.... I understand why people feel like if you are on a no fly list that u shouldnt be able to get weapons but you can get put on a no fly list easily but be impossible to be taken off

Answer 45

You know nothing about a topic you have chosen to portray judge and jury on. You are so wrong about this subject that you have lost all credibility. The amazing thing about this is that you think you're right based on nothing more than your unfounded and completely wrong opinions.

Answer 46

Why do I need an AR? Because there are millions and millions of them 'out there' - why would I want to protect my family with a 7 shot 1911 when being attacked by two or three people carrying AR's? Does this sound like a fair fight to you?



FYI - you can thank gun control for putting so many AR's on the street. The AR-15 was on store shelves since 19 fricken 62 and was always an overpriced unwanted gun. The old ban is what created all the demand. Nice going - people like you.



Did you read about the kid in Chicago gunned down by an 'assault weapon'? Seems the 'Assault Weapon' figured out how to drive a 4 door Saturn before gunning down the 17 year old. Real shame we cant ban them - oh snap!! Chicago already bans 'Assault Weapons". WTF?? If they are already banned in Chicago - then how did this kid get shot? Wait - lets ban 4 door Saturns - that way the 'Assault Weapons' wont be able to drive them any more.



You want to stop mass killing? How about stopping kids from performing virtual 'mass killings' on their game consoles before they had dinner each night? Funny - 600+ gun laws in the US Coast-to-Coast that don't stop gun violence and nobody wants to do anything different than pass a new law? Morons.

Answer 47

military assault rifles are already illegal. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is not an automatic weapon. those are illegal to buy.



So what do you do under you plan with all the many thousands of AR-15s that have already been legally purchase and are owned by law abiding citizens? Do they get to keep them? If you are not proposing a gun confiscation law then they must get to keep them.



The Orlando shooter was not on a watchlist. He had been cleared from the watchlist. Are you really suggesting that people who are cleared should still have their rights taken away. Currently people on the watchlist have had no due process, they are just on the list because someone became suspicious. Are you proposing that someone lose their rights as a citizen for life sole based on what maybe a false suspicion by a random person. No court order or due process.



The 2nd amendment does not guarantee gun rights solely for self defense against buglers.



We need to stop yapping about gun control which would have done nothing to stop the Orlando terrorist attack. We need to stop being so damn politically correct when it comes to investigating these suspected terrorists and get these guys off the streets. There were plenty of clues to the Orlando shooters extremist views and he never should have been cleared.

Answer 48

Part of the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller (1939) rightly pointed out that ANY firearm particularly suitable for use by a Militia is CLEARLY protected by the 2nd Amendment. My thoughts on gun control? I certainly do support common sense restrictions on gun ownership for certain SPECIFIC people, I don't believe YOU or ANY currently elected official has the qualifications needed to determine what qualifies as "common sense".