I would not mind if full-auto guns are banned because it would not affect me but that would be crazy if they banned guns used for self-defense.

GFXSkating wrote You do understand we will still have the right to bear arms. Just not certain arms.

But that's still a problem. If they ban one thing they will think they can ban whatever they want. Say for example they do ban the assault weapons next they might ban shotguns or pistols because anybody can carry a pistol or whatever lame excuse they want to make for it. If it passes they will keep going and taking control

I forgot to mention if your from the UK you can't possibly understand so don't hate on american's for having gun's

TTGxBANANAS wrote

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

I'm not using it for an 'excuse' I am using it as a valid argument.
Some of the various LEGAL uses of an AR: Hunting, recreational shooting, safety.

Guns are not the horrible things the media has made them into.
People are the problem. Not guns.

A gun has *never shot itself.

*except for misfires, which rarely harm people, and are usually a user related issue

EXM wrote I would not mind if full-auto guns are banned because it would not affect me but that would be crazy if they banned guns used for self-defense.

Those are already banned.

TTG_l0g4n wrote

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.

I prefer the term "Realistic". Be honest, do you really believe whatever weapons you currently own would protect you from a nationwide takeover? Answer is probably not. I have simply realized that the odds of us actually being invaded are smaller than I think people believe that we could be so easily invaded because of movies and Video games depicting the "Evil" Chinese and Koreans forcing their terrible communist societies on us. Not true. For starters, where would most of china's exports go if we didn't exist? And what about Korea? They have so many enemies it would be hard for them to invade any world power without retaliation. And also, proof that China Hacked our power grid and could have sent us back to the stone ages?

I don't wish to argue guys. It's something none of us can really change anyways. I simply would like an explanation on why you would need something such as an AR-15 for hunting. And please don't say "Because it's our right!".

TTGxBANANAS wrote I don't wish to argue guys. It's something none of us can really change anyways. I simply would like an explanation on why you would need something such as an AR-15 for hunting. And please don't say "Because it's our right!".

I'm not arguing, I am debating.

TTG_l0g4n wrote

TTGxBANANAS wrote I don't wish to argue guys. It's something none of us can really change anyways. I simply would like an explanation on why you would need something such as an AR-15 for hunting. And please don't say "Because it's our right!".

I'm not arguing, I am debating.

I don't mean you. you have valid points. It's simply annoying when someone pulls the "Because it's our right!" trick just to get out of explaining the true use of a high capacity semi-auto rifle for hunting :/

TTGxBANANAS wrote

TTG_l0g4n wrote

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.

I prefer the term "Realistic". Be honest, do you really believe whatever weapons you currently own would protect you from a nationwide takeover? Answer is probably not. I have simply realized that the odds of us actually being invaded are smaller than I think people believe that we could be so easily invaded because of movies and Video games depicting the "Evil" Chinese and Koreans forcing their terrible communist societies on us. Not true. For starters, where would most of china's exports go if we didn't exist? And what about Korea? They have so many enemies it would be hard for them to invade any world power without retaliation. And also, proof that China Hacked our power grid and could have sent us back to the stone ages?

There is strength in numbers, I am not saying I am rambo and could lone ranger take out an opposing government invasion, But with other people holding the same beliefs. It could be done.

Look it up, its all over the internet, the white house even acknowledged that it happened. I have better things to do than prove fact to a 15 year old. you have google. use it.