TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote I regret to inform some of you that a nationwide ban own private firearm ownership is not going to solve crime problems at all. the majority of people committing acts of violence through the use of firearms are not obtaining the firearms through legal means. The black market thrives on illegal sales of firearms and by banning firearms you will be increasing the trafficking of illegal firearms into the US. How is making a market that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars illegal (handing it over to illegal traffickers) making this country safer? The people that are already doing the trafficking stop at nothing to get their 'product' into the country. Giving them the motivation of millions of dollars isn't going to make them any nicer or easier to stop.

Where is it in the constitution that says that someone cannot own a machine gun if they want to? There are enough (my opinion) regulations already in place to negate a 'crazy person' to have purchasing power of such weaponry. For people that don't know, to buy a fully automatic firearm of any kind in the state of Oregon you need to pass a in-depth background test, pay a fee to the federal goverment (I believe its around $250 per weapon.), and you have to have a chief law enforcement officer sign off on multiple documents ( to my knowledge a course must be passed in order for the signing of these documents.)

Maybe instead of focusing on 'taking guns off the streets'. A better use of money, time, and resources would be to implement firearm safety courses in school. The only thing I ever heard in school about guns as a kid is that they were bad and if I see one to tell an adult. If not for the way I was raised I would not be able to safely operate a firearm. A good percent of shootings in the US are from accidental shootings from people that don't know how to safely operate a firearm.

I understand that at this point the his proposal does not ban all guns. But, if I were in the presidents place I would know that trying to pull ever gun out of every citizens hand in the US would be near impossible. If I wanted controls, elimination, or limitation of gun sales and ownership in the US I would start small and slowly increase restrictions. Which is what I believe is happening.

The Constitution was written 300 years ago. Assault weapons haven't been around for 100. Please explain how they would have figured "Hey, in three hundred years people will have large capacity, semi-automatic Rifles! we should probably put something about those in there!" The constitution was written when half the population lived in isolated environments where you could be killed by Enemy troops any day. We have police, we have an organized army, we have law. You don't need an assault weapon to protect yourself from an intruder. Get a smaller caliber handgun. It scare off 90% of intruders, and kill an intruder if they feel lucky. People don't need Assault Weapons :p

I'm not going to go in order of deconstructing your poorly thought out message, Instead I am going to start with the most un-thought topics and proceed.

1. "It scare off 90% of intruder, and kill an intruder if they feel lucky."
90% of the time isn't enough percent when it comes to protecting myself and the ones that I love. I don't have kids yet but when I do I would like to feel safe that if anyone tried to break into my house and potentially harm anyone. I would have the means available to prevent it. Also, you should of put a word between "it" and "scare".

2. "a smaller caliber handgun."
I would like to to clarify, But last time I checked the lethality of a .22 and even a 9mm pales in comparison to a .45. Bigger=better and referring to point #1. I would rather be safe than sorry.

3. "We have police, we have an organized army, we have law."
I have had two break ins living at my house, thankfully they were solved without the use of much physical force and no firearm use. But, it took the police over an hour to respond to both situations. Yes, we have an orginized army, but in the unfortunate event of the army becoming part of a corrupt military rule then how do we as innocent people defend ourselves?

4. "The constitution was written 300 years ago..."
It was actually 224 years ago. And is referred to as a living document for a reason. Change can and should be made to it. But within reason.

The amendments can only be changed by another amendment. For example the Prohibition Of Alcohol had to be changed with a later Amendment. It took over 10 years for that to happen, and right now we don't have ten years to spend making everyone happy. We need change, and it's needed now more than ever.

You defended none of your previous points, you obviously have little to no knowledge of anything in the real world. If anything we need fire arms more than ever. With war and corruption at an all time high. We need to be able to defend ourselves if needed. When you are old enough you'll understand that the random kid on TTG was rite.

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

Lyico wrote i am a hunter and i choose my AR-15 5.56 NATO so they can suck my fat balls.

Tell me please, when has your 25-30 Round Magazine really improved your hunting experience? Do you really need that much power for Elk?

Please tell me, When the zombie apocalypse happens. Do you intend to buy quick reload for your 5-10 round mag? Because if not, you're SOL.

Off topic - An assault weapon would be of no use in the Zombie Armageddon. It would just attract more zombies, and no use unless you wish to die. Go with an actual hunters rifle. Easy to maintain, ammo is plentiful, and great for simple kills. And with the 30 round magazine, you'd just be wasting ammunition. It only takes one bullet to the head to kill, why waste 10 in the chest?

How is your bolt action hunting rifle going to stop a potential horde of zombies?

And obvi. since COD zombies is based on real life. When has someone thought "Hey, i'll take this Kar98 over a M60."
Never been said in the history of COD.

The point of it would to kill the occasional zombie effectively. He who believes he will be able to survive the Armageddon killing every zombie he sees, and with a loud weapon such as that one is foolhardy or lying. Carrying a 25 pound machine gun is also too much. Slows you down and will be the death of you. Unless you pitch your pack, then you're unarmed though. You need reliable, easy to maintain rifle, and a medium caliber handgun to keep on you at all times. Pulling out a Death Machine and a full auto sidearm would only accelerate the uninevitable.

Survival would be key, I guess we approach this from two different sides, In the ideal world I would like to be set in a bunker somewhere with supplies and the ability to be prepared for a number of situations. If that means using a assault rifle with a 30 round mag than I would want one. I would take a 7.62 Nato AR over a .30cal bolt action bushmaster any day.

An AR is easy enough to maintain. (The reason the military uses them in such quantity.)

I love how we can go from Gun bans, to Zombies, To COD, and back to zombies. HAHA

TTGxBANANAS wrote

Yin wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TryHardGraphics wrote What I don't get is why do they want to ban guns its not the guns its the people, why not just do background checks like Obama proposed that is the thing I 100% agree with Obama but on banning assault rifles?Nope 2nd amendment.

Assault Rifles are banned. No citizen can own a fully automatic rifle of any variant. It's extremely illegal. Assault weapons refer to rifles such as the AR-15 Civilian Variant. They normally have larger magazines, but only fire as fast as the trigger is pulled. I don't support them though, and don't believe citizens should own them. :p

Actually you can get fully auto weapons in some states if you have the money, licenses, background, and have something to lock them in. They also have to be made before 1986. If you want to get technical, anything and everything can be an assault weapon. It's a tag they place it with to make it seem worse than what it is. It's a semi-auto rifle, nothing more. My brother has two AR-15's and I guarantee you he won't give those up. It's unconstitutional and no one in the government has the right to take them away. The government has created many laws in the past 15 years that are unconstitutional and it's getting quite ridiculous.

Obviously it's unconstitutional. There were no Assault weapons when the second Amendment was put in place. Obviously because the founding fathers wished us all to carry trench knives and M4s. On the serious side though, I don't believe that simply saying "Because I like them" Is a fair argument to use when defending guns rights either. And I doubt that half the people who say they would rebel against the Government if all ballistics weapons were banned would actually bear arms and fight our Army. Most would turn tail and run, or submit to the laws. Just the way it goes :/

Again, all weapons are assualt weapons. Assault means to cause bodily harm. A pistol is an assault weapon. A musket is an assasult weapon. Our foundng fathers had pistols though. Why didn't they say we could have pistols, but not rifles? It's because they want us to have the same weaponry as the government. I bet they would give us full-auto rifles if given the chance. My family own them for multiple reasons. For collecting, hunting, self defence, and if anything happens during this whole gun situation. All in all, our founding fathers didn't let us have them due to everyday self defence. They gave us the right to be able to stand against the military and the other forms of authority. It wouldn't be smart to assume they would take away our right from the guns that the military have. If they gave us the right because they knew a government and military may try to rule us, why would they ban the guns that the military have? That's not smart at all. People out there are evil, but that does not give the government the right to take away semi-auto rifles. You punish the evil people. Taking away our rights isn't punishing anyone but good people. It's unconstitutional and should never happen.

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote I regret to inform some of you that a nationwide ban own private firearm ownership is not going to solve crime problems at all. the majority of people committing acts of violence through the use of firearms are not obtaining the firearms through legal means. The black market thrives on illegal sales of firearms and by banning firearms you will be increasing the trafficking of illegal firearms into the US. How is making a market that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars illegal (handing it over to illegal traffickers) making this country safer? The people that are already doing the trafficking stop at nothing to get their 'product' into the country. Giving them the motivation of millions of dollars isn't going to make them any nicer or easier to stop.

Where is it in the constitution that says that someone cannot own a machine gun if they want to? There are enough (my opinion) regulations already in place to negate a 'crazy person' to have purchasing power of such weaponry. For people that don't know, to buy a fully automatic firearm of any kind in the state of Oregon you need to pass a in-depth background test, pay a fee to the federal goverment (I believe its around $250 per weapon.), and you have to have a chief law enforcement officer sign off on multiple documents ( to my knowledge a course must be passed in order for the signing of these documents.)

Maybe instead of focusing on 'taking guns off the streets'. A better use of money, time, and resources would be to implement firearm safety courses in school. The only thing I ever heard in school about guns as a kid is that they were bad and if I see one to tell an adult. If not for the way I was raised I would not be able to safely operate a firearm. A good percent of shootings in the US are from accidental shootings from people that don't know how to safely operate a firearm.

I understand that at this point the his proposal does not ban all guns. But, if I were in the presidents place I would know that trying to pull ever gun out of every citizens hand in the US would be near impossible. If I wanted controls, elimination, or limitation of gun sales and ownership in the US I would start small and slowly increase restrictions. Which is what I believe is happening.

The Constitution was written 300 years ago. Assault weapons haven't been around for 100. Please explain how they would have figured "Hey, in three hundred years people will have large capacity, semi-automatic Rifles! we should probably put something about those in there!" The constitution was written when half the population lived in isolated environments where you could be killed by Enemy troops any day. We have police, we have an organized army, we have law. You don't need an assault weapon to protect yourself from an intruder. Get a smaller caliber handgun. It scare off 90% of intruders, and kill an intruder if they feel lucky. People don't need Assault Weapons :p

I'm not going to go in order of deconstructing your poorly thought out message, Instead I am going to start with the most un-thought topics and proceed.

1. "It scare off 90% of intruder, and kill an intruder if they feel lucky."
90% of the time isn't enough percent when it comes to protecting myself and the ones that I love. I don't have kids yet but when I do I would like to feel safe that if anyone tried to break into my house and potentially harm anyone. I would have the means available to prevent it. Also, you should of put a word between "it" and "scare".

2. "a smaller caliber handgun."
I would like to to clarify, But last time I checked the lethality of a .22 and even a 9mm pales in comparison to a .45. Bigger=better and referring to point #1. I would rather be safe than sorry.

3. "We have police, we have an organized army, we have law."
I have had two break ins living at my house, thankfully they were solved without the use of much physical force and no firearm use. But, it took the police over an hour to respond to both situations. Yes, we have an orginized army, but in the unfortunate event of the army becoming part of a corrupt military rule then how do we as innocent people defend ourselves?

4. "The constitution was written 300 years ago..."
It was actually 224 years ago. And is referred to as a living document for a reason. Change can and should be made to it. But within reason.

The amendments can only be changed by another amendment. For example the Prohibition Of Alcohol had to be changed with a later Amendment. It took over 10 years for that to happen, and right now we don't have ten years to spend making everyone happy. We need change, and it's needed now more than ever.

You defended none of your previous points, you obviously have little to no knowledge of anything in the real world. If anything we need fire arms more than ever. With war and corruption at an all time high. We need to be able to defend ourselves if needed. When you are old enough you'll understand that the random kid on TTG was rite.

You don't need a weapon such as a Civilian AR-15 Variant to defend yourselves. Learn to use a medium caliber handgun, or a hunting shotgun if necessary. It's not as if Al-Qaeda is busting down your door and taking your family. And it's not like your going to wake up tomorrow with "Praise The Messiah Barack Obama" posters everywhere, and the MP killing everyone. It's not like that. Other than the occasional thug, there's not much to defend yourself from.

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote I regret to inform some of you that a nationwide ban own private firearm ownership is not going to solve crime problems at all. the majority of people committing acts of violence through the use of firearms are not obtaining the firearms through legal means. The black market thrives on illegal sales of firearms and by banning firearms you will be increasing the trafficking of illegal firearms into the US. How is making a market that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars illegal (handing it over to illegal traffickers) making this country safer? The people that are already doing the trafficking stop at nothing to get their 'product' into the country. Giving them the motivation of millions of dollars isn't going to make them any nicer or easier to stop.

Where is it in the constitution that says that someone cannot own a machine gun if they want to? There are enough (my opinion) regulations already in place to negate a 'crazy person' to have purchasing power of such weaponry. For people that don't know, to buy a fully automatic firearm of any kind in the state of Oregon you need to pass a in-depth background test, pay a fee to the federal goverment (I believe its around $250 per weapon.), and you have to have a chief law enforcement officer sign off on multiple documents ( to my knowledge a course must be passed in order for the signing of these documents.)

Maybe instead of focusing on 'taking guns off the streets'. A better use of money, time, and resources would be to implement firearm safety courses in school. The only thing I ever heard in school about guns as a kid is that they were bad and if I see one to tell an adult. If not for the way I was raised I would not be able to safely operate a firearm. A good percent of shootings in the US are from accidental shootings from people that don't know how to safely operate a firearm.

I understand that at this point the his proposal does not ban all guns. But, if I were in the presidents place I would know that trying to pull ever gun out of every citizens hand in the US would be near impossible. If I wanted controls, elimination, or limitation of gun sales and ownership in the US I would start small and slowly increase restrictions. Which is what I believe is happening.

The Constitution was written 300 years ago. Assault weapons haven't been around for 100. Please explain how they would have figured "Hey, in three hundred years people will have large capacity, semi-automatic Rifles! we should probably put something about those in there!" The constitution was written when half the population lived in isolated environments where you could be killed by Enemy troops any day. We have police, we have an organized army, we have law. You don't need an assault weapon to protect yourself from an intruder. Get a smaller caliber handgun. It scare off 90% of intruders, and kill an intruder if they feel lucky. People don't need Assault Weapons :p

I'm not going to go in order of deconstructing your poorly thought out message, Instead I am going to start with the most un-thought topics and proceed.

1. "It scare off 90% of intruder, and kill an intruder if they feel lucky."
90% of the time isn't enough percent when it comes to protecting myself and the ones that I love. I don't have kids yet but when I do I would like to feel safe that if anyone tried to break into my house and potentially harm anyone. I would have the means available to prevent it. Also, you should of put a word between "it" and "scare".

2. "a smaller caliber handgun."
I would like to to clarify, But last time I checked the lethality of a .22 and even a 9mm pales in comparison to a .45. Bigger=better and referring to point #1. I would rather be safe than sorry.

3. "We have police, we have an organized army, we have law."
I have had two break ins living at my house, thankfully they were solved without the use of much physical force and no firearm use. But, it took the police over an hour to respond to both situations. Yes, we have an orginized army, but in the unfortunate event of the army becoming part of a corrupt military rule then how do we as innocent people defend ourselves?

4. "The constitution was written 300 years ago..."
It was actually 224 years ago. And is referred to as a living document for a reason. Change can and should be made to it. But within reason.

The amendments can only be changed by another amendment. For example the Prohibition Of Alcohol had to be changed with a later Amendment. It took over 10 years for that to happen, and right now we don't have ten years to spend making everyone happy. We need change, and it's needed now more than ever.

You defended none of your previous points, you obviously have little to no knowledge of anything in the real world. If anything we need fire arms more than ever. With war and corruption at an all time high. We need to be able to defend ourselves if needed. When you are old enough you'll understand that the random kid on TTG was rite.

You don't need a weapon such as a Civilian AR-15 Variant to defend yourselves. Learn to use a medium caliber handgun, or a hunting shotgun if necessary. It's not as if Al-Qaeda is busting down your door and taking your family. And it's not like your going to wake up tomorrow with "Praise The Messiah Barack Obama" posters everywhere, and the MP killing everyone. It's not like that. Other than the occasional thug, there's not much to defend yourself from.

Your argument is invalid, there's much more than the "occasional thug" to defend yourself from, you never know what is going to happen.

Yin wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

Yin wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TryHardGraphics wrote What I don't get is why do they want to ban guns its not the guns its the people, why not just do background checks like Obama proposed that is the thing I 100% agree with Obama but on banning assault rifles?Nope 2nd amendment.

Assault Rifles are banned. No citizen can own a fully automatic rifle of any variant. It's extremely illegal. Assault weapons refer to rifles such as the AR-15 Civilian Variant. They normally have larger magazines, but only fire as fast as the trigger is pulled. I don't support them though, and don't believe citizens should own them. :p

Actually you can get fully auto weapons in some states if you have the money, licenses, background, and have something to lock them in. They also have to be made before 1986. If you want to get technical, anything and everything can be an assault weapon. It's a tag they place it with to make it seem worse than what it is. It's a semi-auto rifle, nothing more. My brother has two AR-15's and I guarantee you he won't give those up. It's unconstitutional and no one in the government has the right to take them away. The government has created many laws in the past 15 years that are unconstitutional and it's getting quite ridiculous.

Obviously it's unconstitutional. There were no Assault weapons when the second Amendment was put in place. Obviously because the founding fathers wished us all to carry trench knives and M4s. On the serious side though, I don't believe that simply saying "Because I like them" Is a fair argument to use when defending guns rights either. And I doubt that half the people who say they would rebel against the Government if all ballistics weapons were banned would actually bear arms and fight our Army. Most would turn tail and run, or submit to the laws. Just the way it goes :/

Again, all weapons are assualt weapons. Assault means to cause bodily harm. A pistol is an assault weapon. A musket is an assasult weapon. Our foundng fathers had pistols though. Why didn't they say we could have pistols, but not rifles? It's because they want us to have the same weaponry as the government. I bet they would give us full-auto rifles if given the chance. My family own them for multiple reasons. For collecting, hunting, self defence, and if anything happens during this whole gun situation. All in all, our founding fathers didn't let us have them due to everyday self defence. They gave us the right to be able to stand against the military and the other forms of authority. It wouldn't be smart to assume they would take away our right from the guns that the military have. If they gave us the right because they knew a government and military may try to rule us, why would they ban the guns that the military have? That's not smart at all. People out there are evil, but that does not give the government the right to take away semi-auto rifles. You punish the evil people. Taking away our rights isn't punishing anyone but good people. It's unconstitutional and should never happen.

One Bad apple ruins the bunch they say :/ . And I hope no one out there believes citizens should have access to Fully Automatic Rifles. May whatever God there is save us if that happens. But I trust our government, and without them (No matter how much they screw up) we wouldn't even be having this discussion. There needs to always be some sort of rule, or we are all idiots running around with our heads cut off. There needs to be order, and a set of systems with an outcome. Not a people trying to overthrow their government because they can't hunt deer with a M4 Variant. And no, not all guns are assault weapons. Weapons that need the assistance of a bolt action pull or pump action are not classified as these weapons. Although I do believe in the right to keep a Semi-Auto Medium caliber handgun, so I will defend the rights of keeping those.

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote I regret to inform some of you that a nationwide ban own private firearm ownership is not going to solve crime problems at all. the majority of people committing acts of violence through the use of firearms are not obtaining the firearms through legal means. The black market thrives on illegal sales of firearms and by banning firearms you will be increasing the trafficking of illegal firearms into the US. How is making a market that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars illegal (handing it over to illegal traffickers) making this country safer? The people that are already doing the trafficking stop at nothing to get their 'product' into the country. Giving them the motivation of millions of dollars isn't going to make them any nicer or easier to stop.

Where is it in the constitution that says that someone cannot own a machine gun if they want to? There are enough (my opinion) regulations already in place to negate a 'crazy person' to have purchasing power of such weaponry. For people that don't know, to buy a fully automatic firearm of any kind in the state of Oregon you need to pass a in-depth background test, pay a fee to the federal goverment (I believe its around $250 per weapon.), and you have to have a chief law enforcement officer sign off on multiple documents ( to my knowledge a course must be passed in order for the signing of these documents.)

Maybe instead of focusing on 'taking guns off the streets'. A better use of money, time, and resources would be to implement firearm safety courses in school. The only thing I ever heard in school about guns as a kid is that they were bad and if I see one to tell an adult. If not for the way I was raised I would not be able to safely operate a firearm. A good percent of shootings in the US are from accidental shootings from people that don't know how to safely operate a firearm.

I understand that at this point the his proposal does not ban all guns. But, if I were in the presidents place I would know that trying to pull ever gun out of every citizens hand in the US would be near impossible. If I wanted controls, elimination, or limitation of gun sales and ownership in the US I would start small and slowly increase restrictions. Which is what I believe is happening.

The Constitution was written 300 years ago. Assault weapons haven't been around for 100. Please explain how they would have figured "Hey, in three hundred years people will have large capacity, semi-automatic Rifles! we should probably put something about those in there!" The constitution was written when half the population lived in isolated environments where you could be killed by Enemy troops any day. We have police, we have an organized army, we have law. You don't need an assault weapon to protect yourself from an intruder. Get a smaller caliber handgun. It scare off 90% of intruders, and kill an intruder if they feel lucky. People don't need Assault Weapons :p

I'm not going to go in order of deconstructing your poorly thought out message, Instead I am going to start with the most un-thought topics and proceed.

1. "It scare off 90% of intruder, and kill an intruder if they feel lucky."
90% of the time isn't enough percent when it comes to protecting myself and the ones that I love. I don't have kids yet but when I do I would like to feel safe that if anyone tried to break into my house and potentially harm anyone. I would have the means available to prevent it. Also, you should of put a word between "it" and "scare".

2. "a smaller caliber handgun."
I would like to to clarify, But last time I checked the lethality of a .22 and even a 9mm pales in comparison to a .45. Bigger=better and referring to point #1. I would rather be safe than sorry.

3. "We have police, we have an organized army, we have law."
I have had two break ins living at my house, thankfully they were solved without the use of much physical force and no firearm use. But, it took the police over an hour to respond to both situations. Yes, we have an orginized army, but in the unfortunate event of the army becoming part of a corrupt military rule then how do we as innocent people defend ourselves?

4. "The constitution was written 300 years ago..."
It was actually 224 years ago. And is referred to as a living document for a reason. Change can and should be made to it. But within reason.

The amendments can only be changed by another amendment. For example the Prohibition Of Alcohol had to be changed with a later Amendment. It took over 10 years for that to happen, and right now we don't have ten years to spend making everyone happy. We need change, and it's needed now more than ever.

You defended none of your previous points, you obviously have little to no knowledge of anything in the real world. If anything we need fire arms more than ever. With war and corruption at an all time high. We need to be able to defend ourselves if needed. When you are old enough you'll understand that the random kid on TTG was rite.

You don't need a weapon such as a Civilian AR-15 Variant to defend yourselves. Learn to use a medium caliber handgun, or a hunting shotgun if necessary. It's not as if Al-Qaeda is busting down your door and taking your family. And it's not like your going to wake up tomorrow with "Praise The Messiah Barack Obama" posters everywhere, and the MP killing everyone. It's not like that. Other than the occasional thug, there's not much to defend yourself from.

Civilian Ar-15 can be used for hunting as well as recreational use. We are hunters and gathers' by nature and hunting has been a staple of making (American or other) since the beginning of time. to limit that is wrong in my opinion.

a hunting shotgun can cause more harm than needed, If you opt for traditional 'shot' you risk harming individuals not intended to be harmed. (I was a competition trap shooter for 2 years so I know my way around a shotgun.) If you opt for Buckshot your whole argument falls apart. (buckshot is more lethal and painful and less humaine than a assault rifle.)

Pistols are closer to being banned than assault rifles are.

Who are you to say that an invasion or corruption will not happen? I am not a crazy person that thinks its a high possibility. But, I like to be prepared for the worst.

xICEDxLEADER wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote I regret to inform some of you that a nationwide ban own private firearm ownership is not going to solve crime problems at all. the majority of people committing acts of violence through the use of firearms are not obtaining the firearms through legal means. The black market thrives on illegal sales of firearms and by banning firearms you will be increasing the trafficking of illegal firearms into the US. How is making a market that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars illegal (handing it over to illegal traffickers) making this country safer? The people that are already doing the trafficking stop at nothing to get their 'product' into the country. Giving them the motivation of millions of dollars isn't going to make them any nicer or easier to stop.

Where is it in the constitution that says that someone cannot own a machine gun if they want to? There are enough (my opinion) regulations already in place to negate a 'crazy person' to have purchasing power of such weaponry. For people that don't know, to buy a fully automatic firearm of any kind in the state of Oregon you need to pass a in-depth background test, pay a fee to the federal goverment (I believe its around $250 per weapon.), and you have to have a chief law enforcement officer sign off on multiple documents ( to my knowledge a course must be passed in order for the signing of these documents.)

Maybe instead of focusing on 'taking guns off the streets'. A better use of money, time, and resources would be to implement firearm safety courses in school. The only thing I ever heard in school about guns as a kid is that they were bad and if I see one to tell an adult. If not for the way I was raised I would not be able to safely operate a firearm. A good percent of shootings in the US are from accidental shootings from people that don't know how to safely operate a firearm.

I understand that at this point the his proposal does not ban all guns. But, if I were in the presidents place I would know that trying to pull ever gun out of every citizens hand in the US would be near impossible. If I wanted controls, elimination, or limitation of gun sales and ownership in the US I would start small and slowly increase restrictions. Which is what I believe is happening.

The Constitution was written 300 years ago. Assault weapons haven't been around for 100. Please explain how they would have figured "Hey, in three hundred years people will have large capacity, semi-automatic Rifles! we should probably put something about those in there!" The constitution was written when half the population lived in isolated environments where you could be killed by Enemy troops any day. We have police, we have an organized army, we have law. You don't need an assault weapon to protect yourself from an intruder. Get a smaller caliber handgun. It scare off 90% of intruders, and kill an intruder if they feel lucky. People don't need Assault Weapons :p

I'm not going to go in order of deconstructing your poorly thought out message, Instead I am going to start with the most un-thought topics and proceed.

1. "It scare off 90% of intruder, and kill an intruder if they feel lucky."
90% of the time isn't enough percent when it comes to protecting myself and the ones that I love. I don't have kids yet but when I do I would like to feel safe that if anyone tried to break into my house and potentially harm anyone. I would have the means available to prevent it. Also, you should of put a word between "it" and "scare".

2. "a smaller caliber handgun."
I would like to to clarify, But last time I checked the lethality of a .22 and even a 9mm pales in comparison to a .45. Bigger=better and referring to point #1. I would rather be safe than sorry.

3. "We have police, we have an organized army, we have law."
I have had two break ins living at my house, thankfully they were solved without the use of much physical force and no firearm use. But, it took the police over an hour to respond to both situations. Yes, we have an orginized army, but in the unfortunate event of the army becoming part of a corrupt military rule then how do we as innocent people defend ourselves?

4. "The constitution was written 300 years ago..."
It was actually 224 years ago. And is referred to as a living document for a reason. Change can and should be made to it. But within reason.

The amendments can only be changed by another amendment. For example the Prohibition Of Alcohol had to be changed with a later Amendment. It took over 10 years for that to happen, and right now we don't have ten years to spend making everyone happy. We need change, and it's needed now more than ever.

You defended none of your previous points, you obviously have little to no knowledge of anything in the real world. If anything we need fire arms more than ever. With war and corruption at an all time high. We need to be able to defend ourselves if needed. When you are old enough you'll understand that the random kid on TTG was rite.

You don't need a weapon such as a Civilian AR-15 Variant to defend yourselves. Learn to use a medium caliber handgun, or a hunting shotgun if necessary. It's not as if Al-Qaeda is busting down your door and taking your family. And it's not like your going to wake up tomorrow with "Praise The Messiah Barack Obama" posters everywhere, and the MP killing everyone. It's not like that. Other than the occasional thug, there's not much to defend yourself from.

Your argument is invalid, there's much more than the "occasional thug" to defend yourself from, you never know what is going to happen.

If an opposing army invades, or something along the lines of that, theres not much you can do to protect yourself. Outnumbered, outgunned, and hopeless really. I do not mean just give yourself up if this were to happen, but it's not like your going to fight off wave after wave of Korean invaders. I'm just trying to be realistic :/

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote I regret to inform some of you that a nationwide ban own private firearm ownership is not going to solve crime problems at all. the majority of people committing acts of violence through the use of firearms are not obtaining the firearms through legal means. The black market thrives on illegal sales of firearms and by banning firearms you will be increasing the trafficking of illegal firearms into the US. How is making a market that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars illegal (handing it over to illegal traffickers) making this country safer? The people that are already doing the trafficking stop at nothing to get their 'product' into the country. Giving them the motivation of millions of dollars isn't going to make them any nicer or easier to stop.

Where is it in the constitution that says that someone cannot own a machine gun if they want to? There are enough (my opinion) regulations already in place to negate a 'crazy person' to have purchasing power of such weaponry. For people that don't know, to buy a fully automatic firearm of any kind in the state of Oregon you need to pass a in-depth background test, pay a fee to the federal goverment (I believe its around $250 per weapon.), and you have to have a chief law enforcement officer sign off on multiple documents ( to my knowledge a course must be passed in order for the signing of these documents.)

Maybe instead of focusing on 'taking guns off the streets'. A better use of money, time, and resources would be to implement firearm safety courses in school. The only thing I ever heard in school about guns as a kid is that they were bad and if I see one to tell an adult. If not for the way I was raised I would not be able to safely operate a firearm. A good percent of shootings in the US are from accidental shootings from people that don't know how to safely operate a firearm.

I understand that at this point the his proposal does not ban all guns. But, if I were in the presidents place I would know that trying to pull ever gun out of every citizens hand in the US would be near impossible. If I wanted controls, elimination, or limitation of gun sales and ownership in the US I would start small and slowly increase restrictions. Which is what I believe is happening.

The Constitution was written 300 years ago. Assault weapons haven't been around for 100. Please explain how they would have figured "Hey, in three hundred years people will have large capacity, semi-automatic Rifles! we should probably put something about those in there!" The constitution was written when half the population lived in isolated environments where you could be killed by Enemy troops any day. We have police, we have an organized army, we have law. You don't need an assault weapon to protect yourself from an intruder. Get a smaller caliber handgun. It scare off 90% of intruders, and kill an intruder if they feel lucky. People don't need Assault Weapons :p

I'm not going to go in order of deconstructing your poorly thought out message, Instead I am going to start with the most un-thought topics and proceed.

1. "It scare off 90% of intruder, and kill an intruder if they feel lucky."
90% of the time isn't enough percent when it comes to protecting myself and the ones that I love. I don't have kids yet but when I do I would like to feel safe that if anyone tried to break into my house and potentially harm anyone. I would have the means available to prevent it. Also, you should of put a word between "it" and "scare".

2. "a smaller caliber handgun."
I would like to to clarify, But last time I checked the lethality of a .22 and even a 9mm pales in comparison to a .45. Bigger=better and referring to point #1. I would rather be safe than sorry.

3. "We have police, we have an organized army, we have law."
I have had two break ins living at my house, thankfully they were solved without the use of much physical force and no firearm use. But, it took the police over an hour to respond to both situations. Yes, we have an orginized army, but in the unfortunate event of the army becoming part of a corrupt military rule then how do we as innocent people defend ourselves?

4. "The constitution was written 300 years ago..."
It was actually 224 years ago. And is referred to as a living document for a reason. Change can and should be made to it. But within reason.

The amendments can only be changed by another amendment. For example the Prohibition Of Alcohol had to be changed with a later Amendment. It took over 10 years for that to happen, and right now we don't have ten years to spend making everyone happy. We need change, and it's needed now more than ever.

You defended none of your previous points, you obviously have little to no knowledge of anything in the real world. If anything we need fire arms more than ever. With war and corruption at an all time high. We need to be able to defend ourselves if needed. When you are old enough you'll understand that the random kid on TTG was rite.

You don't need a weapon such as a Civilian AR-15 Variant to defend yourselves. Learn to use a medium caliber handgun, or a hunting shotgun if necessary. It's not as if Al-Qaeda is busting down your door and taking your family. And it's not like your going to wake up tomorrow with "Praise The Messiah Barack Obama" posters everywhere, and the MP killing everyone. It's not like that. Other than the occasional thug, there's not much to defend yourself from.

Civilian Ar-15 can be used for hunting as well as recreational use. We are hunters and gathers' by nature and hunting has been a staple of making (American or other) since the beginning of time. to limit that is wrong in my opinion.

a hunting shotgun can cause more harm than needed, If you opt for traditional 'shot' you risk harming individuals not intended to be harmed. (I was a competition trap shooter for 2 years so I know my way around a shotgun.) If you opt for Buckshot your whole argument falls apart. (buckshot is more lethal and painful and less humaine than a assault rifle.)

Pistols are closer to being banned than assault rifles are.

Who are you to say that an invasion or corruption will not happen? I am not a crazy person that thinks its a high possibility. But, I like to be prepared for the worst.

When I mean shotgun, I mean for hunting purposes. You are right a buckshot inside a confined space is too dangerous. But I mean people shouldn't use "Hunting" as an excuse for owning a weapon such as the AR-15

TTGxBANANAS wrote

xICEDxLEADER wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote I regret to inform some of you that a nationwide ban own private firearm ownership is not going to solve crime problems at all. the majority of people committing acts of violence through the use of firearms are not obtaining the firearms through legal means. The black market thrives on illegal sales of firearms and by banning firearms you will be increasing the trafficking of illegal firearms into the US. How is making a market that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars illegal (handing it over to illegal traffickers) making this country safer? The people that are already doing the trafficking stop at nothing to get their 'product' into the country. Giving them the motivation of millions of dollars isn't going to make them any nicer or easier to stop.

Where is it in the constitution that says that someone cannot own a machine gun if they want to? There are enough (my opinion) regulations already in place to negate a 'crazy person' to have purchasing power of such weaponry. For people that don't know, to buy a fully automatic firearm of any kind in the state of Oregon you need to pass a in-depth background test, pay a fee to the federal goverment (I believe its around $250 per weapon.), and you have to have a chief law enforcement officer sign off on multiple documents ( to my knowledge a course must be passed in order for the signing of these documents.)

Maybe instead of focusing on 'taking guns off the streets'. A better use of money, time, and resources would be to implement firearm safety courses in school. The only thing I ever heard in school about guns as a kid is that they were bad and if I see one to tell an adult. If not for the way I was raised I would not be able to safely operate a firearm. A good percent of shootings in the US are from accidental shootings from people that don't know how to safely operate a firearm.

I understand that at this point the his proposal does not ban all guns. But, if I were in the presidents place I would know that trying to pull ever gun out of every citizens hand in the US would be near impossible. If I wanted controls, elimination, or limitation of gun sales and ownership in the US I would start small and slowly increase restrictions. Which is what I believe is happening.

The Constitution was written 300 years ago. Assault weapons haven't been around for 100. Please explain how they would have figured "Hey, in three hundred years people will have large capacity, semi-automatic Rifles! we should probably put something about those in there!" The constitution was written when half the population lived in isolated environments where you could be killed by Enemy troops any day. We have police, we have an organized army, we have law. You don't need an assault weapon to protect yourself from an intruder. Get a smaller caliber handgun. It scare off 90% of intruders, and kill an intruder if they feel lucky. People don't need Assault Weapons :p

I'm not going to go in order of deconstructing your poorly thought out message, Instead I am going to start with the most un-thought topics and proceed.

1. "It scare off 90% of intruder, and kill an intruder if they feel lucky."
90% of the time isn't enough percent when it comes to protecting myself and the ones that I love. I don't have kids yet but when I do I would like to feel safe that if anyone tried to break into my house and potentially harm anyone. I would have the means available to prevent it. Also, you should of put a word between "it" and "scare".

2. "a smaller caliber handgun."
I would like to to clarify, But last time I checked the lethality of a .22 and even a 9mm pales in comparison to a .45. Bigger=better and referring to point #1. I would rather be safe than sorry.

3. "We have police, we have an organized army, we have law."
I have had two break ins living at my house, thankfully they were solved without the use of much physical force and no firearm use. But, it took the police over an hour to respond to both situations. Yes, we have an orginized army, but in the unfortunate event of the army becoming part of a corrupt military rule then how do we as innocent people defend ourselves?

4. "The constitution was written 300 years ago..."
It was actually 224 years ago. And is referred to as a living document for a reason. Change can and should be made to it. But within reason.

The amendments can only be changed by another amendment. For example the Prohibition Of Alcohol had to be changed with a later Amendment. It took over 10 years for that to happen, and right now we don't have ten years to spend making everyone happy. We need change, and it's needed now more than ever.

You defended none of your previous points, you obviously have little to no knowledge of anything in the real world. If anything we need fire arms more than ever. With war and corruption at an all time high. We need to be able to defend ourselves if needed. When you are old enough you'll understand that the random kid on TTG was rite.

You don't need a weapon such as a Civilian AR-15 Variant to defend yourselves. Learn to use a medium caliber handgun, or a hunting shotgun if necessary. It's not as if Al-Qaeda is busting down your door and taking your family. And it's not like your going to wake up tomorrow with "Praise The Messiah Barack Obama" posters everywhere, and the MP killing everyone. It's not like that. Other than the occasional thug, there's not much to defend yourself from.

Your argument is invalid, there's much more than the "occasional thug" to defend yourself from, you never know what is going to happen.

If an opposing army invades, or something along the lines of that, theres not much you can do to protect yourself. Outnumbered, outgunned, and hopeless really. I do not mean just give yourself up if this were to happen, but it's not like your going to fight off wave after wave of Korean invaders. I'm just trying to be realistic :/

You are going to be one of the people that gives into an opposing force. And Now that you made that comment I assume you are easily influenced by something that has more power than you.

There has never been a point in man's history where there has not been a war somewhere in the world. So to say that an invasion is not going to happen sounds like something a nieve 10 year old wold say.
Are the chances slim, yes.
Is there a realistic chance still, yes.
China hacked our power grid less than a year ago.

Read up on things before you speak.