Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #572 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
here's my opinion. i know posting an opinion on the internet is a big no no, but im hoping i can have an intelligent discussion with someone. i live in ontario canada and our gun laws are pretty sound. nothing full auto, really only long rifles and shotguns for hunting and skeet/target shooting really, and the handgun laws are so strict it makes more sense not to have them. i own guns because i hunt. now this is where america confuses me. why do you need automatic rifles? what is the purpose for them? and handguns? the fact the some people need to carry handguns around for personal protection speaks volumes about how ****** America is. i can go to toronto the biggest city in ontario and feel completely reassured that i wont be attacked, our schools allow trips where students split off into groups unsupervised and meet up with the teachers across downtown. i dont mean to be offensive, i just cant understand why you NEED assault rifles. and dont just say that the 2nd amendment says you can, because that rule was written 200 years ago by a bunch of rebellious racists who were being sought after by the british and needed firearms to protect themselves. i havent seen any governments start any fight in its own country in a while where you would need assault rifles to protect you, and even if that EVER happened, i would be reaching for my 30-6, not a 5.56.

TL;DR why do you need assault rifles america?
User avatar #652 to #572 - heroicvenom (01/25/2013) [-]
while you may be right on why we Americans would not need automatic weapons and such, I do believe its the idea that if the government can take those away, what exactly is stopping them from taking all firearms. By their logic, the governing powers have guns, why would you need guns when they have the weapons to do the protection for you. and in an chain of events, the government will start to turn towards an dictatorship. because they are the ones who "protect" us. that is my idea on that stuff
User avatar #656 to #652 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
well like i said you can never take away all the guns. its simply impossible. while the government does have the greater power, the population has the higher numbers. in the end, the government would rely on soldiers to fight for them, and i highly doubt soldiers would fire on their own neighbours.
User avatar #668 to #656 - heroicvenom (01/25/2013) [-]
true, true... but personally i think the real reason of even bothering this stuff is so that my government can get more money and control over its people, mostly money. although impossible to get all the weapons, they would hypothetically have more firepower anyways. while we think the soldiers would make the right choice to fight for the people, there have been incidents where the soldier was just following orders, its thoughts like this that makes me think that we should just over.
#676 to #668 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
i doubt any soldier would fire on his own people in a first world country. harsh but true. and yes america is one big money whore. pic related
#611 to #572 - ilynchnigs (01/25/2013) [-]
**ilynchnigs rolled a random image posted in comment #968 at MLP Friendly Board ** im about to butcher this guys name, but look up piers morgan on youtube against this Jewish guy. he poses some pretty good points about why assault rifles are and should be legal. also, statistically, places (like mexico/ Britain) that ban guns have a decrease in gun related crimes, but an overall increase in crime activity.
User avatar #618 to #611 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
i dont want to sound like a conspiracy nut, but that whole thing was a joke. the producers knew that alex jones was a hot head and would fly off the handle, and knew that if piers kept a calm level head they would make alex jones' point look outlandish and stupid. jones is actually very smart. never believe what the media says to be 100% accurate
User avatar #622 to #618 - ilynchnigs (01/25/2013) [-]
no no no, not jones, ive seen piers' show a lot and i am well aware of his fallacious tactics of taking "passionate" people and making them seem like a nut job.
found link www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyMSM__wvGc
User avatar #657 to #622 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
i didnt see that one until now, but it was very good.
User avatar #591 to #572 - CHARGERZ (01/25/2013) [-]
first they take away the automatic. second step gradually take everything.
#602 to #591 - theonlytinman ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
What do you need an automatic gun for? Small arms/semi-automatic arms are for self defense and for hunting. To use on animals. Now, I can only see automatic weapons used for killing a LOT of something. No animals need to be killed that fast. So by taking them away, they minimize the chance of a mass murder or some crazed hostage situation where they CAN kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds.
User avatar #658 to #602 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Everybody is finally learning about guns, and it couldn't come any later. Automatics are not for killing a lot of things, but a few things really well, well-suited for home defense and the militia. Automatics are not used in any of the crimes that made news. Taking away guns has shown statistically the opposite effect you stated. Guns are very important and our founding fathers said a lot about them. Please, learn more about why guns are important in the hands of the people. Thank you.
User avatar #866 to #658 - theonlytinman ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
I support what this nation is founded on. I really do. But its a different age. Things need to change to maintain good order and discipline.
User avatar #600 to #591 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
they would never successfully take away all the guns. its pretty hard to go and shoot up a school or a mall with a bolt action rifle, or a break action shotgun for example. it is however easy to use a semi automatic weapon that was designed for more urban combat.
User avatar #604 to #600 - CHARGERZ (01/25/2013) [-]
Also taking away guns fixes nothing you cant fix crazy by taking away their guns.
User avatar #603 to #600 - CHARGERZ (01/25/2013) [-]
and its pretty hard to defend yourself from your own government when u have bolt actions and they have automatic assault rifles.
#590 to #572 - theonlytinman ONLINE (01/25/2013) [-]
Almost all Americans agree that automatic rifles are a no-no. As for the handgun thing, its more for a public safety thing. Alongside that, if your house is broken into, its easier to pick up a small arm, point and shoot than it is to get a medium sized weapon such as a rifle. Not only that, but they're harder to take away from a person in tighter situations. As for the bit about trusting kids to go unsupervised and meet back up downtown? Well, lets just say that kids in America are retarded because warning labels don't let natural selection do its job. Picture somewhat related.
User avatar #597 to #590 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
i get the idea of self protection, but personally i would get a shotgun if someone tried to break in, that is if i could get the gun safe open in time, another law in ontario, im not sure if it is in america. and i wasnt trying to make a point of the level of intelligence it was more of a point that the kids wont get mugged or shot.
#617 to #597 - ilynchnigs (01/25/2013) [-]
**ilynchnigs rolled a random image posted in comment #125 at Neat ** no its fine, insult the children, im 17 and a junior in high school, and i find myself cringing every time one of those greasy autistic ***** opens their mouth to say some belligerent phrase most likely involving SWAG or YOLO
User avatar #620 to #617 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
oh they are ******* morons, im in highschool as well, but that actually wasnt the point i was making.
User avatar #623 to #620 - ilynchnigs (01/25/2013) [-]
i just wanted to say it because it gave my night some comedic relief to insult my own generation.
User avatar #588 to #572 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
1. Only a few have automatic rifles and none of these crimes were committed with any of them.
2. You need to study American history and the constitution again.
3. Not that 5.56 is inferior in anyway, but your 30-6 will be banned as well if it is effective at all.
User avatar #596 to #588 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
sandy hook and the aurora movie theater shootings assault rifles were used, along with colombine. i dont have a lot of knowledge on the american constitution but thats basically the basis of the 2nd amendment in a nutshell. they wanted to protect themselves from the tyrannical birtish government. and while the 30-6 is a powerful rifle, crimes arent generally committed with them because they are usually bolt action with high recoil, and really only effective at long range, you cant shoot up a school with it very well.
User avatar #607 to #596 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
1. Automatic rifle =/= assault rifle
2. 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with the British.
3. You can keep your 30-6. No, it is not "good enough."
User avatar #612 to #607 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
you know what i meant. the body count would be higher when automatic rifles are used e.g. colombine. you cant say that the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with the british, it was obviously a major force. they just went through a war with them to get their independence, so obviously there would be british supporters they would have needed to protect themselves from, and another attack from the british could have come at anything such as the war of 1812.
User avatar #625 to #612 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
1. Columbine did not use automatic weapons. Also, Columbine happened during the first assault weapons ban. This isn't about "protecting" people, it's about disarming them.
2. The 2nd Amendment is about protecting civil liberties from a straying government, not defending against foreign invasion.
Please get your facts together before posting.
User avatar #653 to #625 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
i apologize for my lack of knowledge on mass shootings, but i still argue that the amendment was written with tyrannical governments in mind.
User avatar #661 to #659 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
my stance on this is not to ban all firearms. just automatics and make handguns harder to acquire. a deeper background check should be mandatory, and the purchasing of firearms should be more regulated. by that i mean, licensed retailers selling firearms, not wal mart and target. in ontario you have to go to a hunting store, the only thing close to a gun you can get at a canadian wal mart is an air rifle
User avatar #684 to #661 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
Your stance is a bit ill-informed and based on a lack of understand for the need for guns, and I have to keep this short, so:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
- Sigmund Freud
User avatar #697 to #684 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
i understand what you're saying, i just think that there could be some adjustments to the laws. thats it. because while you and i and a few others understand, the general mass doesn't. plain and simple. and while mentally ill people are able to buy a gun as easily as the rest of the american population, whats stopping them from shooting up another school. if you make the tools less accessible the job wont get done as easily. i hope that makes sense because i am running on about 7 hours sleep and its 2:30 am for me so sorry if that's a little intangible
User avatar #704 to #697 - cabbagemayhem (01/25/2013) [-]
Believe it or now, a teacher with a gun would be better. Nobody shoots up a place until they see the "No Gun" sticker on the door. If people want Canada or England, they can go to Canada or England. Stop trying to change America.
User avatar #896 to #704 - Senior Bob (01/26/2013) [-]
well i am canadian, and we've got it pretty good
#605 to #596 - Typicaltroll (01/25/2013) [-]
He said "automatic rifles" not "assault rifles". There's a difference. Also, as for not being able to shoot up a school with a bolt action very well.. look at the UT clock tower shooting back in the 60's. I do agree with you when you said they'll never successfully take away all the guns, I know plenty of people in my state that would literally die fighting to keep their guns.
User avatar #615 to #605 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
crimes are more often commited with automatic/semi automatic weapons. it just makes sense. if i were to hypothetically perform a mass killing i would get as many rounds off as possible, instead of picking them off one by one with a bolt action that holds like 10 rounds or so.
User avatar #902 to #615 - cabbagemayhem (01/26/2013) [-]
For the last god damn time, crimes are almost never committed with automatic weapons. Almost no one even owns an automatic weapon. And, no it neither makes sense, nor is it how the Sandy Hook shooting was actually done. Please, educate yourself before supporting your own oppression.
#583 to #572 - Stan Marsh (01/25/2013) [-]
Canadian brofist
#579 to #572 - anon (01/25/2013) [-]
We don't have many assault rifles, they are restrictively expensive. Automatic weapons are still banned. What we do have are lots of semi auto riffles chambered in intermediate rounds that our media pass off as "assault weapons" the only relation between these rifles and genuine assault rifle is caliber and shape. they have no select fire switch, cannot be fired full auto and are mechanically different to them.
User avatar #581 to #579 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
that is acceptable, but in my mind not very practical. if you're going to use a rifle to take down a deer lets say, i'd rather use a 30-6 round, or even a slug from a shotgun. 5.56 just wouldnt be a lot. i dont know about other 5.56 rounds but i know the NATO round is designed to shatter and fragment inside the body which wouldnt be good for hunting too. target/sport shooting sure. i dunno, just my opinion.
#662 to #581 - anon (01/25/2013) [-]
You should try this thing called Google and research what NATO is. You would realize that when you say something that makes NATO sound like a type of ammunition, you also sound like you don't know what your talking about.
User avatar #671 to #662 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO that came back to bite you in the ass.
User avatar #670 to #662 - Senior Bob (01/25/2013) [-]
5.56 NATO round. used in most M4 and M4 variants. i know what the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is.
 Friends (0)