Funny, i would argue the "we need all kinds of guns to defend us from The government" to be pretty fear-based.
Funny, I would argue that the founding fathers fighting "the government" at that time disagree with you.
These conversations always remind me of Farmer Shays. I remember how the founding fathers treated with him.
As many more thousands killed in the past year by cars agree they should be removed from the streets.
Safe to say the world is an overwhelmingly dangerous place. The disagreement is how much we can protect ourselves. With a motor vehicle you take the risk while driving. Elimination of assault rifles is the tip of the iceberg with regard to gun control. I know volume seems to be current argument but hand guns are a far greater problem in this country.
Hand guns are about 10 million times more dangerous than the so called "assault rifles" that people want banned. It's funny watching people that don't have a clue about guns get all worked up over AR-15's when that's not the problem. Hand guns are much more easily concealed, just as easy to shoot and just as easy to reload. It's a combo of mentally unstable people, people not taking the care to put guns away when not in use and dumbasses that think having a gun makes them invincible. People calling for bans aren't getting at the problem, they're just pissing off the millions of responsible gun owners.
People will find a way to kill people regardless of how easy it is to access guns. I don't see the point in blaming a gun when a lunatic decides to go off. I never have and I never will. It's easy to point blame a gun though, I guess that's why. It's a lot harder to call out parents that had kids doped up on ritalin, prozac etc and not dealing with an issue. And the Sandy Hook deal? You're living with a psycho that's threatened bodily harm on you. It is the mother's fault for having a gun where the guy could get them. That's not a gun issue and a ban isn't going to help it either.
1) It is a silly arguement; as if a few running around with deer rifles could match the military firepower. I do know a few who I would otherwise consider rational that want assault weapons to protect themselves and their families during the apocalypse they feel is coming (i.e., market meltdown, natural disaster, manmade disaster, etc.). 2) Because deflection is easier than answering the question.
Typical political over reaction not directly dealing with all aspects of the problems. I dont blame the Obama political machine for exploiting the tragedy. Team Obama needs any thing and every thing to hang their hat on. Im not naive enough to believe they truly care about responsible gun control. Gun related crime in this country is despicable with or without these mass shootings. It would be refreshing to actually address gun control not limited to political buzz words of the day.
I would like a little commentary on how the founders were witness to an armed rebellion, and though they put the rebellion down, they didn't ban the arms they were carrying. Hm. What ya think IP?
The California Democrat [Sen. Dianne Feinstein] intends to expand on the ban that expired in 2004, by including handguns and shotguns, in addition to rifles. She would decrease from two to one the number of cosmetic features on a gun to have it be considered an “assault weapon.” This means that if a gun has just one item like a pistol grip or bayonet lug, then it is illegal. Read more: MILLER: National Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
What about a shotgun with a pistol grip used to turkey hunt with? That's a pretty popular modification.