Post
someonegotmyname someonegotmyname 51-55, F 21 Answers Jan 16, 2013 in Community

Your Response

Cancel

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



What part of this is hard to understand?

Best Answer

I understand totally!

Best Answer

Finaly someone with a brain.

Best Answer

I would support both.

Best Answer

Why Do you think that will stop people from killing each other? I think the real point is "CONTROL" not gum control!
I really would like to know because I do not understand why you would support that?

Best Answer

Here are my thoughts...and I realize that not everyone will agree with me (which is okay with me....that's what makes our country great....we can express our opinions without getting arrested or jailed).
There are certain weapons designed for military use that citizens are not allowed to possess...rocket launchers, grenade launchers etc......I consider guns that can rapidly deliver multiple rounds to be in the same category: useful for our armed forces, but serving no real purpose for civilians.
I agree with you: limiting access to guns will not stop people from killing each other. But, limited access will limit the carnage when an unbalanced person decides to take deadly action.
I believe that sometimes the rights of an individual need to be limited in order to benefit society as a whole. I view gun control as an example.
I realize that this is a heated topic in which many have strong views. I'm not interested in a flame out contest or engaging in a series of personal attacks. I just wanted to state my opinion and I am interested in hearing the thoughtful opinions of others.

Best Answer

So very thoughtfully worded. Thank you.

Best Answer

I think that your average man on the street should not have access to an assault rifle. It's a very versatile, easy to use weapon that can cause serious destruction. What does your average man on the street who seldom (or ever) sees actual mortal combat want with an assault rifle ?

Best Answer

I think your missing the point of your "RIGHTS" of the average person, Go read it then come back and say that.A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

Best Answer

Exactly

Best Answer

Assault rifles are already illegal.

Best Answer

There is no such thing as a "assault rifle" it is an umbrella catch phrase which does not define any firearm in particular, checkout: http://www.policymic.com/articles/21191/nobody-really-knows-what-an-assault-rifle-is-so-how-are-we-supposed-to-ban-them

Best Answer

An actual assault rifle is the ones they use in the military, it's full auto and has other sh*t on it like granade lancher and is purposly designed to kill as many people as you can fast. the semi auto colt ar 15 is not an a assault wepon and none of the others there just semi auto rifles.

Best Answer

Neither. This (http://www.assaultweapon.info/) perfectly explains the devious creation of the term, "assault weapon." Assault RIFLES are already illegal. Also, they are called, "magazines" not cartridges. Guns are not printers.

Best Answer

Yup, so I just link them to that location. It's highly informative and not at all condescending.

Best Answer

It just goes to show you most people dont know what an asault rifle is let alone a magazine. That how the gov bans guns cause they make it out like these guns are for killing people and people dont even know what their tring to ban. their just ignorant.

Best Answer

Precisely.

Best Answer

Actually, assault rifles are already banned. There is a distinct difference between and assault rifle and an assault weapon. Assault rifles are fully automatic, military weapons, i.e. machine guns, which have been banned from legal civilian ownership (with very few exceptions) for many years. Assault weapons, on the other hand, is a political term coined back in 1989 to define semi-automatic look alikes. Assault weapons have features that make them look military grade, such as a folding, or collapsing stock, pistol grip, flash suppressors, etc. yet they are no more lethal than any other semi-automatic weapon.

Best Answer

I would maybe go along with it, IF they take them away from the cops too.

Best Answer

make mental evaluations mandatory for people buying guns and their relatives and friends. but what ever u do thugs gonna always have gunz no matter what. drugs are illegal...who has the most of them--thugs, criminals dont obey laws why do ppl in congress not understand that?? they think if they pass a law everybody gonna drop what they doing to obey it...fuuck that shiit everybody gonna keep they gunz and they gonna make billions in fines and fees...its a get rich quick scheme to get money away from people an give it to the govt pig bastards...were not stupid.

Best Answer

Yeah because changing a magazine is so difficult.

Best Answer

When owning guns were banned in the UK, all had to handover their weapons. Irrespective of their purchase date or a license that their held. The Licences were revoked. Tough luck if you have purchased one. No refunds - but hand them over...

Best Answer

Neither. You should go the other way around and ban public appearance without assault weaponry and a large amount of ammo for everyone over 10 in the US.

Best Answer

Neither

Best Answer

Yeah, let's also ban high capacity gas tanks, so they don't cause a lot of damage when blown up.

Best Answer

Why would you do that ? Do you ban hammers more people are killed by them .

Best Answer

How about ban V8 engines cause you dont need that many to drive to work?

Best Answer

Related Questions