Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #827 - durkadurka (01/25/2013) [-]
The thing is, most of the weapons they want to ban are rarely involved in any gun crime at all. There are millions of people who own AR15s alone and yet the number of murders per year with ANY rifle is in the hundreds.

Also, the proposed ban targets a number of pistols and shotguns. Apparently those are "assault weapons" too.

But the politicians don't care because it's never been about saving lives. It's all about control. Otherwise these politicians would be working to keep criminals from obtaining weapons, enforcing existing gun laws, and reforming mental health.

But they won't, because as Senator Feinstein admitted, it's about "drying up the supply."
#863 to #827 - sodapops (01/25/2013) [-]
I've wanted to ask this for the longest time: In how many school shootings or massacres in the USA have assault rifles ACTUALLY been used? The latest I could find was in the eighties (Though I guess there are lots of gang wars and such we never get to hear about here). It's like here in Sweden, every time some psycho murders somebody with a rickety handgun smuggled in from Russia, the hunters, weapon collectors and competetive shooters gets ******* slammed.
User avatar #864 to #863 - sodapops (01/25/2013) [-]
Oh... Just found a link on wikipedia I had missed before. Apparently assault rifles are something completely different from assault weapons. What I can see assault weapon could mean any and all semi-automatic weapons depending on state. Guess I own 2 assault weapons, I NEVER KNEW!

Anyway, in my post up there I meant selective-fire REAL assault rifles.
User avatar #881 to #864 - durkadurka (01/25/2013) [-]
Yeah, the whole "assault weapons" term doesn't mean anything to anyone who actually involves themselves with guns. It's a term used by anti gun people.

The thing I hate about it is how easily people mistake "assault weapon" to mean some sort of automatic military hardware. It makes people more likely to go along with these gun bans because they think they're banning machinguns and assault rifles (which are already banned).

It's all about deception. An AR15, or any other "assault weapon" is not functionally different than any other semi auto rifle.
User avatar #830 to #827 - amateriandarknut (01/25/2013) [-]
The idea is to start with weapons that "aren't necessary". The more they take away weapons like that, the more comfortable people are with it, until it gets all the way down to no weapons. That's the reason any infringement isn't a good idea period.
User avatar #882 to #830 - durkadurka (01/25/2013) [-]
It's scary isn't it? They're manipulating people's tendencies to focus on the moment and decide via emotion.

If they pass this they'll wait a decade or so until people are used to it. Then they'll move on to ALL semi auto weapons (for example) using the SAME reasons they use today. Then they'll wait a bit and move onto the rest until the people no longer have any weapons.

They claim that they don't want to take our guns, but it's the end result of what they're trying to do and they know it.
User avatar #858 to #830 - techketzer (01/25/2013) [-]
Your arms aren't necessary for you to live either.
How about we take those?
User avatar #871 to #858 - amateriandarknut (01/25/2013) [-]
I don't think you quite understand.
I put the phrase "aren't necessary" in quotes. As in I'm not the one that decided they weren't necessary. It's liberals that believe that certain guns aren't necessary, not me. I don't think the government has any grounds to take weapons just because they deem it not necessary for civilians.
User avatar #873 to #871 - techketzer (01/25/2013) [-]
Yes, I misunderstood you.
User avatar #874 to #873 - amateriandarknut (01/25/2013) [-]
It's no problem. I was just clarifying. I can kind of see it.
I actually thought the main content was serious until someone corrected me.
#870 to #858 - amateriandarknut has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #855 to #830 - teufelshunde (01/25/2013) [-]
Aren't necessary? When did my unalienable human rights become only applicable "when necessary"?
User avatar #869 to #855 - amateriandarknut (01/25/2013) [-]
That's exactly my point, and exactly why it's in quotation marks. I was making the point that that's where they start, by taking weapons that government decides you don't need.
User avatar #872 to #869 - techketzer (01/25/2013) [-]
I see I completely misread your comment.
Please disregard mine (#858) and have your thumb back. :)
 Friends (0)