that's there job :I
I would think assault weapon bans would be more for public safety

A man with a gun in his drawer can respond a lot faster than a police officer.

you can't fit an AR-15 in a drawer
I have no problem with a sane man having a handgun

A handgun. Compact, lightweight, easily concealed, fairly large-capacity magazines (hell, Glock makes 33-round handgun magazines), a reasonable degree of lethality... Also used in somewhere around 70% of assaults. Yeah, I completely agree that those are "better" than "assault rifles".

Do you people have any idea what you're talking about?

you get a thumb sir

huh...
actually that is a very good point
I was merely thinking about mass shootings...but that is a good point
to be honest as long as the person is proved sane, and able to use the gun right, i don't care what weapon they have as long as they are aloud to have it

I simply think that stricter gun laws will prevent some of these from happening
what is probably better then gun Control is
better security, not more necessarily, but better
and mental health care reform

I come off as extremely pro-gun on these comment threads, but I do agree with mental health screenings, background checks, and licensing. More than anything we need to make sure that the people themselves are OK, not the tools they use. The way I see it, any sane, law abiding citizen should have the right to get whatever they feel they need for whatever purpose they need, be it hunting, recreation, or protection from those who disregard whatever laws are in place.

I agree with this statement
assault weapons I'm iffy about, but if they get the ok from the government then, ok

now things like Rocket and grenade launchers......I don't care if people think they need it
those should just be illegal :I

Well, thing is, "assault weapons" (AKA, select-fire rifles capable of fully automatic fire, chambered in an intermediate cartridge) are already heavily regulated. You can't legally buy one that was manufactured before some point in the 80's. Because of this, they're effectively collector's items, and their prices are astronomical. Not to mention that they're not all that good for mass killings anyways.

Not many people have those either. And really, how many crimes have been committed in the past few decades with an RPG?

RPG's? none....to my knowledge
I'm just saying how ludicrous it is that someone would say they have a right to own one

anyway, i think we can both meet each other somewhere in the middle
we both seem reasonable :)

Well, we have lots of things we don't "need". But we have them anyways. We can justify having them however we want, but the arguments common to almost all of these things is "because we can" and "because they're fun". And isn't that reason enough in the "Land of the Free"? So long as your fun doesn't infringe on the basic human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, who's to complain?

Yeah, you seem pretty cool. Enjoy yourself =)

Clearly your dresser is very small. And there are very extensive background checks and equally long waiting periods to get a license to own a handgun or automatic weapon, let alone purchase one.

if the Federal Government bans assault weapons, I'm ok with that
but if they just decide to more strictly enforce who gets them, I'm ok with that too

Not much more of a way to enforce them. Most cases of gun violence are with a stolen weapon or someone taking their parent's gun, when their parent passed all background checks.

Well many police chiefs have already come out and publicly stated that they won't enforce the AWB, even if it passes, because they think it's unconstitutional, and too dangerous for their officers.

According to the FBI the last AWB had no effect on public safety, and if it did, it was too small to measure.
And it won't be any different this time.
So called "assault weapons are used in less than 5% of all gun crime, and less than 3% of murders.
The AWB was never meant to increase public safety. It's a stepping stone for further bans and legislation.
There are recoding from the 90s of politicians admitting this, and the same politicians are are trying to push the laws through again for a new try.
But they know it won't be easy, and so they use things like New Town, and letters "from children" to tug at the publics heartstrings.

if the Police Officers won't enforce the law the way the president and government see fit
they will simply be fired
it's as simple as that
if the Supreme Court rules that it is unconstitutional then it will not be a law and hence not be enforced anymore
but until them
they have their orders

His little speech gives them more than right to take away his assualt rifle. He is clealy no longer mentally stable

You do realize the 2nd amendment is about killing the people that try to infringe on your other rights, right?

The founding fathers wrote that in, because they recently had to use their guns to kill a bunch of redcoats that tried to take their freedom away, so they wrote in a guarantee to future generations, so they could be armed if something like that happened again.

And don't give me shit like that the 2nd amendment only applies to a militia, Because when it was written, all males between the ages of 15 and 50 were considered part of the militia. And don't give me the whole "oh, but it doesn't apply to modern weapons" because the reason the Americans won the war of independence was that civilians owned warships and canons. And the founding fathers sure as hell knew that since most of them fought in the war.


I'm not even American, and I know that much.

by that logic you should give a nuclear war head to every citizen and if anyone is unhappy with the government they can just blow it up.cause it's just a weapon and the power and potential for destruction of said weapon is irrelevant as long as you can bear arms.

hey Timmy!
I'm being thumbed down
even though i thought I stated pretty well how the government works :I

lol that's pretty funny.

whatever
I hate crazy gun people sometimes :I

eyuup.

No one should have nukes, not even the fucking G20 governments.
And no one is seriously suggesting we let anyone have nukes.
Stop being ridiculous and post a valid argument.

hey he threatens to kill people and giving his status as an ex merc, should he still be allowed to bear arms, when he is in the brink of insanity?

Was he really? Can you get me more info on this muscular, scary looking fellow?

His name is James Yeager, he's the CEO of a company called Tacitcoool Arms or some shit training people in assault training or whatever. He does videos, I looked on the website before and they have quite a small staff so I doubt it's actual academy or some shit, rather than just a few guys giving out tips in their freetime.
Anyways, he was a police during the 90's, apart of a SWAT unit, apart of a dog unit too as a officer, he wasn't a mercenary, he was a private military security contractor during the Iraq war and protected the polling stations and politicians during their first election. He did see combat, but I heard a bunch of rumors on /k/ that his unit got ambushed, he hid in a ditch, and ran away. But never knew the rest of it.



But anyways, for anyone thinking that gun owners like this guy, you're completely wrong. James Yeager has got a repution by a lot of people on a bunch of firearms forums for being a douche, people were criticizing on his videos in the past and he threaten anyone to meet him in real life to fight him and he would offer them reward money, and a bunch of different ego shit. His tactical training is apperantly shitty too.

Anyways the guy is a real life American version of "m8 i swear on mums life i wreck u in rl 1v1"

www.youtube.com/user/JamesYeager

This is his youtube channel.
He runs a school that teaches shooting and combat skills.
He was recently striped of his concealed carry license when he posted anti-Obama videos on youtube.

I'm actually surprised further actions weren't taken since he spoke out against the president and threatened to start a civil war of sorts. Guy is cray cray, but I love it. One of the few guys in the world that has some hair on his peaches.