Author Topic: Just wondering, why is everyone against the Gun Control bill?  (Read 5544 times)

But no one needs an automatic in their home to protect themself.

automatic weapons were banned decades ago? only a few models from before some date in the 50s or 60s are legally obtainable why do you people even keep making this argument you guys are implying we have no gun regulations at all

and who are you to say what we need? it's the bill of rights not the bill of needs

no one really owns automatic weapons lol.

none of the guns used in any of these shootings were automatic lol. they were just rifles. same mechanics as all these "hunting rifles" you guys say are so much safer.

the newtown shooter could have used a bolt action rifle and killed even more children then he already did. he had stuffloads of time to do it. he just got bored and shot himself LOOOONGGGG before the first cop showed up.

very ironic how everyone wants to stop guns, but when there is an emergency, everyone sits down and waits patiently for the cop to show up with his gun to save them.

That was added because of the british troops in the 1700s. Not to kill everyone you see
The people that are killing everyone they see aren't getting their weapons legally.

maybe if they gave school safety agents actual guns or tasers or something sfasfsafasf

Nobody should be allowed to have an assault weapon.

Hunting weapons are perfectly fine though.
Except the definitions of assault weapons in all of the bills are vague things like pistol grips. They basically try to ban anything that looks like a military weapon. The fact is though, that a lot of modern hunting rifles look like military weapons because they are more stylish and a lot easier to use.

Real assault weapons like machine guns and rocket launchers are already mostly illegal.

maybe if they gave school safety agents actual guns or tasers or something sfasfsafasf
School resource officers carry tazers and 9mms.
At least thats how it is in ohio.

School resource officers carry tazers and 9mms.
At least thats how it is in ohio.
And in my part of Washington.

yeah you cant buy fully auto weapons unless you are a FFL dealer. and to even get that license, you have to have a legit business regarding such things that is thoroughly checked out. and the fee is very steep to acquire the permits anyways.

and then as a legit gun store, you cant really sell those automatic weapons you can now hang on the wall. because only an FFL dealer could get one lol


In the end a class III license would be really awesome to acquire.

Ignorance
and people are too stupid and blind to see that the bill only wants BETTER background checks. But, no, non non onno no, we can't do that. According to the right wing.

I'm pretty sure lowering magazine capacity won't do much, because the Gritty Grapnel shooter apparently was easily changing mags during the shooting. Oh my, 2 less kids die. Or you know, criminals won't give a damn about gun restrictions and just buy modded ones. It's a stupid bill really.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 09:55:49 PM by Dodger »

The magazine capacity one is pretty dumb in my opinion.

Right to own arms. That's why I'm against it.

wait a second
an assault weapon is NOT only used to describe automatic weapons in the US. Where did you guys even GET that idea?
unless you guys meant automatic as in semi-automatic (which, i guess, is correct terminology)

I didn't even know that this directly affects me, really. My dad has a Kel Tec SUB2000 which, if I'm not mistaken, fits the criteria for an "assault weapon". The only other gun we have in the house is a .22 bolt action. That's all we'd have to defend our house with, just in case worse comes to worst.

Yes, i know, the .22 has a lot of stopping power at close range, but it has a tube magazine, an unzeroed scope, and a bolt action. It really wouldn't be a problem if one guy broke in, but two would definitely be a problem.