watching that jones fool actually makes me furious. what a clown
Should there be more of a restricted Gun Control in the United States? | |||
Yes | 47 | 67.14% | |
No | 23 | 32.86% | |
Total: | 70 |
watching that jones fool actually makes me furious. what a clown
yum123 said: watching that jones fool actually makes me furious. what a clown |
it was lunatic vs lunatic. a battle royale.
Mr Khan said:
Simple: if it isn't a handgun and isn't expressly for the purpose of hunting, it's an assault weapon that nobody who doesn't want to foment rebellion has any legitimate business owning. |
What about peope who want a rifle for target shooting? Outside which we're talking about legislation with no scientific basis in fact, and which the slight scientific research points slighty AGAINST such legislation.
Your essentially asking for a law to restrict peoples rights, that science suggests won't effect anything, or if does have an effect, a very minor negative one to society....
because... I don't even know why. Honestly I can't even understand why someone would want such legislation except for having an inherent bias against guns.
Ive got a question for gun folks. What is the argument against smaller clips, say 2-6 shots till you have to reload. Sure it wont stop criminals from getting banana clips, but it would help prevent lunatics with access to legal guns from shooting up places.
Getting an XBOX One for me is like being in a bad relationship but staying together because we have kids. XBone we have 20000+ achievement points, 2+ years of XBL Gold and 20000+ MS points. I think its best we stay together if only for the MS points.
Nintendo Treehouse is what happens when a publisher is confident and proud of its games and doesn't need to show CGI lies for five minutes.
-Jim Sterling
CDiablo said: Ive got a question for gun folks. What is the argument against smaller clips, say 2-6 shots till you have to reload. Sure it wont stop criminals from getting banana clips, but it would help prevent lunatics with access to legal guns from shooting up places. |
You just answered your own question. It won't prevent criminals from getting banana clips. Hence it won't help prevent lunatic with access to legal guns from shooting up places. They will just get ahold of said clips.
Meanwhile, your inconviencing hunters, targetshooters, and plenty of other people... for something that will have zero effect on anything.
CDiablo said: Ive got a question for gun folks. What is the argument against smaller clips, say 2-6 shots till you have to reload. Sure it wont stop criminals from getting banana clips, but it would help prevent lunatics with access to legal guns from shooting up places. |
Kasz216 said: because... I don't even know why. Honestly I can't even understand why someone would want such legislation except for having an inherent bias against guns. |
I think I see why Khan might be afraid of the ability to own such weapons considering his political philosophies, but his view is intertwined with stereotypes. He's assuming that all or most lawful gun owners who don't want infringement on the second ammendment, and want such protection from the government are lunatic conspiracy theorists or racist white supremacists who are on the far right of the economic spectrum and who would like an overthrow of the current government to be replaced with one kind to their philosophies. This certainly must be frightening, but of course it's not aligned very well in facts. Most lawful gun owners are good people who don't want their freedoms, liberties, and rights taken away. Yes they might be enthusiastic about a hobby, but it's their right to happiness to enjoy life however they want it and they (as well as I - and admittingly I don't even own a gun, although I plan to) feel that guns help secure not only the freedom to own a gun, but other freedoms as well. My grandparents have rifles, of various types for hunting, including some of these "assault rifles" and they're economic moderate-leftists with a basis in contracting unions. When it comes to this matter, they view federal gun laws not only as restrictive, but unecessary, seeing as that most people in their small town live with guns, but you can count on your fingers how many people die per decade by homicide in such a small town. I think it's just a predjudice of gunowners really.
killerzX said:
both are made up terms, 'assault weapon' is just more made up. it is a term conjured up by anti-constitutionalist, progressive statist hoplophobes, soley to disingenously confuse the low information voter into thinking certain black guns a more deadly than some gun with wooden furniture. |
wow....anti-constitutionalist? you people will make up ANY word to discredit those who disagree with you, won't you?
My Console Library:
PS5, Switch, XSX
PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360
3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android
Runa216 said: wow....anti-constitutionalist? you people will make up ANY word to discredit those who disagree with you, won't you? |
And go through a whole lot of trouble to make people think they're not made up words. Crafty!
Runa216 said:
wow....anti-constitutionalist? you people will make up ANY word to discredit those who disagree with you, won't you? |
What'd'ya mean? The people who did coin these terms have had a history of not only disregarding the second amendment, but the other ones as well. Diane Feinstein for example, argued against the amendments to the FISA legislation this past December, which would make the government more accountable to the fourth amendment. They'd be quite happy if the constitution was revised to give them more power. Not to blame them though, that's the natural progression, and the federal government is inherently against a constitution which doesn't give them the power they want. Hence, they're "anti-constitutionalist."