Gun Laws Debate - Clinton, TN
Does the US need to reform its gun laws?
|Not at all||
#1 Jul 24, 2012
I 100% agree with US citizens constitutional right to own guns. I have no issue with that at all. However, no normal citizen needs to own an assault rifle. No argument will convince me otherwise. You can hunt to provide for your family and/or protect your family with handguns and shotguns. No mere citizen has the need for them and they shouldn't have the right to own them. It's just asking for trouble. Only the military should issue them during times of service.
I know an assault weapon ban won't eliminate the problem, but it's a step in the right direction. Flame away, right wingers, but deep down, I know that you know you are wrong.
#2 Jul 28, 2012
I agree with the constitution. Do you really think that if we outlaw all guns that the crooks and dealers won't have one? Wake up people! The bad guys are always going to have them. If you are a law abiding citizen you have your guns only for hunting or protection and no one has the right to kick your grannys door in and rob her and then kill her. we cannot let the bad guys take over. If someone kicks your door in they are not going to go away and let you live. We have to many desperate people out there on drugs and out of money. I will protect my family. You kick my grannys door in and she will shoot you.
#3 Jul 29, 2012
I agree 100% that you and granny should be able to own guns for hunting and protection. No problem at all there. I do believe that neither you, me, granny or any other non-military personnel should be allowed to own assault rifles or anything similar. There should be a ban on them like their used to be. That wouldn't infringe on constitutional rights at all. You could still own your guns, but not machine guns.
You aren't going to hunt with those and a rifle or pistol will protect you well enough.
#4 Sep 18, 2012
What's the difference? If I own assault rifles or any other type of weapon that's my choice to bear arms. If someone breaks into my home in grabbing the nearest weapon no matter what it is...that's my constitutional right. There's no difference.
#5 Sep 18, 2012
Right I carry is the greatest right we still have.
#6 Sep 24, 2012
Do you even know what an "assault rifle" is? Or do you take the word of a pollutician about that matter? Why wouldn't a ban on so called "assault rifles" be an infringement?
#7 Sep 25, 2012
Sure do. Automatic weapons that use a detachabl magazine like an ak-47, etc. I realize that's a pretty general description, but I'm familiar with them. Militaries use them. They are the only people that should legally have them.
An assault rifle ban doesn't infringe on the right to bear arms because, well numbnuts, you can still own firearms under that ban. Pretty simple. If assault rifles were banned, you could still own your pistols and shotguns which are more than enough for hunting and family protection. You can still kill with them, you just may not be able to blow them into oblivion like you can with your machine guns. Poor, pitiful redneck :(
There is no reason a civilian should own, or has reason to own military powered weapons. We all know that small penis syndrome is the reason you all want your big powerful weapons anyways. The perfect example of over compensation.
As I stated before, I'm all for the right to bear arms. Support it 100%. An assault rifle ban does not infringe on that. Simply stated for those that can't wrap their small minds around it, If you can still bear arms (which include handguns and shotguns) then your right to bear arms is still intact.
#8 Sep 26, 2012
Do you mean semi-automatic? Automatic weapons are already heavily regulated and have been for some time. No need for reform. The now expired Brady Bill had a much broader definition of "assault weapons".
From Wikipedia: " In addition to the 19 weapons specifically prohibited, the federal assault weapons ban also defined as a prohibited assault weapon any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher."
How many baynoets, flash suppressors, or grenade launchers have actually been used in crimes? Will outlawing a certain style of stock save lives? The whole bill was a bunch of feel-good crap for the anti-gun crowd, and it accomplished nothing except inconveniencing a few law-abiding citizens.
Small-penis-syndrome also explains the majority of Harleys, big diesel pickups, donks, pit bulls, weigh lifters, Toby Kieth fans, etc. Do you want to ban all that stuff too? Regardless of a person's motivations, I would rather defer to individual freedom and punish the few dumba$$es who actually infringe on the rights of others, rather than give up my rights.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? What if we were only allowed to own muzzle loaders? Would that be infringement? The reason the NRA opposes any new "reasonable" gun regulations is simple: If you give an inch, they'll take a mile. The citizens of most western countries have already lost most or all of their gun rights incrementally. Our Second Amentment, like our First Amendment, is pretty unique in the modern world, and they are both worth fighting for. If we ever lose them to the likes of you, we will NEVER get them back.
Add your comments below
|Nick Hedge||23 min||Friendofnick||4|
|looking for a good time?||4 hr||coolhand||3|
|question about court||14 hr||dontunderstand3776||7|
|Burton and Council Raise Our Taxes||22 hr||ctown mofo||5|
|Phil combs (Aug '14)||Thu||TDB||11|
|Dustin Roby is a c***||Wed||Keyboard 5 STAR G...||2|
|Scumbag Matt (Feb '11)||Wed||Keyboard 5 STAR G...||9|
Find what you want!
Search Clinton Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC