Vote
331 Total Votes
1

Increased Background Checks without further bans

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is a bit of an exaggeration but bare with me here: if you take an RPG, a grenade, 40mm grenade launcher, heck even an M1A1 Tank, or an ICBM with a nuclear warhead and sit it in front of the grossly ... vast majority of Americans, nothing will happen; it will cause no damage. It's those few mentally unstable individuals that cause the problem by using the weapon for terrorist reasons. The fact is, if you ban the AR15, the guy that is planning on taking it out for killing spree will find it somewhere else or worse, they will have to think harder and end up making something even more dangerous like a pressure cooker bomb. The solution is vigilance, communication, and verify verify verify. You don't take away the ability of the people to defend themselves from an enemy that is packing more heat than we are. Hey guy that's like "OH come on, we got the police." Yeah, you go ahead and play hide and seek with an assault rifle, shotgun, handgun, explosives, etc. for the average 7 minute response time. Then it's probably going to be even longer while the first responders wait for backup. Then hope the police have the firepower to combat the enemy's: North Hollywood bank shootout 1997, Texas Police Station June, 13th 2015. You wanna play hide and seek with a semi or fully auto .223, go for it; I'd rather play tag when it comes to my family   more
106 votes
20 comments
2

Keep right to bear arms completely

It is in the 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Taking away that right is taking away apart of what the country itself st... ands for. Almost 90% of the population of Texas owns a gun, many of them not using it for negative purposes. It's like putting people in a box, that everyone will simply turn into a vicious killer if they own a gun. Guns don't kill people, people kill people   more
87 votes
18 comments
3

Background checks/ban assault weapons

Allow for strict background checks, as well as psychological tests, so someone who is mentally unstable doesn't get their hands on a gun. However, completely taking away guns will only give those who are illegally getting them guns, and protecting y... ourself will be nearly impossible. It is also taking away the right to bear arms for hunting   more
55 votes
12 comments
4

Ban all guns from public

Due to all of the mass shootings throughout these past years, there is no denying something needs to be done. Guns are only causing destruction, and until then, no one should be allowed to carry one. You cannot do a background check on someone, beca... use there is no way of knowing the ultimate decisions of a human being. Many times, someone who is involved in one of the mass shootings has no prior criminal record   more
46 votes
8 comments
5

Government grants and tax credits to help arm citizens

An armed society is a polite society.
11 votes
2 comments
6

Have less gun control

Less gun control won't affect criminals at all, seeing as they purchase their guns illegally. With less gun control, more people can arm themselves effectively making them less likely to be attacked by gangs or other would be criminals. In addition,...  with more citizens being heavily armed, the (US) government will have less power over the people. It will also give the common person a way to deter an oppressive government, or to stop one if there is already one in power   more
7 votes
2 comments
7

Do nothing

Its an overly dramatized issue as very few people die from murder and homicidal acts. Debating about this issue is a waste of time when we could be doing more productive things to alleviate suffering.
6 votes
1 comment
8

No gun control

5 votes
0 comments
9

Have mental screening from ages 18-25 for new gun buyers/ Mandatory safe storage laws for handguns(police reps' could hand out safes like gun locks)/ NICS check for a permit to enter a gun show.

3 votes
1 comment
10

Make other changes.

I find it funny that they make more laws against owning rifles and make owning a hand gun easier. They keep adding more restrictions on rifles such as assault rifles but change laws to allow people to carry handguns. With the exception of ones used ... in the military, most people who own them use them on non-human targets for purposes of hunting or target shooting. Hand guns, on the other hand, are not as accurate or useful in hunting. Their advantage is size. Because of the size and weight, you they can be easily hidden in most clothing. This is why they are the gun of choice by most criminals who use guns. For the most part, the only people who get affect by gun laws are those who don't intend on using them for a crime. They would be the only ones who would obey them. If your going to commit a robbery, are you going to care if the gun legal? The more restrictive gun laws only make things worse   more
2 votes
1 comment
11

Background Checks & No Ban on Assault RIfles

2 votes
1 comment
12

No change upon current laws

Americas gun control issue does not stem from a violent population or access to guns to the masses but instead from the societal acceptance and allowance for youth and troubled members of society to be cast aside. As a society ours has made great ef... forts to allow people without struggle in their lives to live their lives without acknowledging the fact others are not in such a good and prestigious place emotionally or mentally. This continually has led to social ostracism and increased gun violence among mentally ill youth and adults. To change a problem of violence, laws against firearms will not end the violence but instead have it be channeled into thoughts of other ways to harm whereas a change in how we treat others in our community can change a persons outlook and life and re-evaluate if harming others is truly worth it   more
1 vote
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
triangle.128k says2015-06-19T13:18:53.3983531-05:00
WOW, the homepage FINALLY updated.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T14:20:05.8502886-05:00
"An armed society is a polite society." What a load of BS.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T14:34:37.6936266-05:00
Just saying, you feel like a victim because you aren't holding the same cards ... Guns are a great equalizer of force. People who carry aren't being oppressive or impolite. If it was about maintaining an advantage over anyone, I wouldn't be here inviting people to carry also.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T14:36:55.4514927-05:00
A better equalizer is neither person having a gun.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T14:38:05.3166368-05:00
"A civilized populace shouldn't need tools to kill each other so easily available." The day you all start being civilized and reasonable is the day i'll stop carrying. Deal?
Kreakin says2015-06-19T14:38:52.8627615-05:00
I live in a gun free society and it's great!
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T14:39:07.4022411-05:00
"A better equalizer is neither person having a gun." Nope, then the person with the biggest muscles wins.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T14:41:21.6272223-05:00
Nope, the person with most skills. But it's rarely fatal having a punch up. Carrying a gun would make me feel afraid, like I can't look after myself without it. It's not something I would want to do unless we were at war.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T14:42:43.7628018-05:00
I live in a gun freedom society and its greater.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T14:44:50.7492438-05:00
But it's not for everyone I suppose. There are some things your society just shouldn't be allowed to do I guess.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T14:45:13.5886787-05:00
You lost me, does that even make sense?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T14:46:34.6316415-05:00
"Nope, the person with most skills. But it's rarely fatal having a punch up." It doesnt need to be fatal ... The weaker one is still be repressed.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T14:48:32.5331191-05:00
Like you wonder why we have a monarch we wonder why you like guns.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T14:48:47.9362050-05:00
"It's not something I would want to do unless we were at war." And when that time comes, your skills with a gun will be lacking against the guys whove been using them their whole lives. I suppose if it comes down to "most skills makes fairness", that'd make you and your people wrong in wartime huh.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T14:50:11.5642374-05:00
No, I trained with SLR's at school.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T14:52:06.7620285-05:00
"You lost me, does that even make sense?" The part about your gun free society having given up it's rights and responsibility to gun ownership? Sure it does. If your people can't handle responsibilities like that it's probably best that you let someone else handle the important stuff for you. Then you can get back to watching you tube and eating skittles.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T14:53:33.5935242-05:00
You might have. Chances are your other citizens and your children will not. Thanks to you of course.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T14:54:23.3114544-05:00
You posted before I sent that, it was in reference to the adaptation of my statement about a gun free society being great. I'm disappointed you have resorted to ad hominem.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T14:56:03.7305855-05:00
What goods SLR training anyway if you don't have one when it's needed?
Kreakin says2015-06-19T14:56:41.4209103-05:00
Wars aren't won with guns anymore, if you think an armed populace with guns will have any chance against a fully equipped military you are very wrong.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T14:58:35.6151347-05:00
Havent been to the middle east lately I take it?
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-19T14:58:37.5651722-05:00
An armed America is not about repelling an invading force; an armed America is about defending us from our Government.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T14:59:17.7555454-05:00
Guns on the ground are always always relevant.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T14:59:35.3234834-05:00
The populace, armed with guns would not stand a chance against the gov forces.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-19T15:00:09.5223413-05:00
The Government forces are the populace
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T15:00:28.9512858-05:00
@Makesensepeopledont It's for both actually. Enemies both foreign and domestic.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T15:01:00.2298873-05:00
Yours might not ... And that's why I am sad for you.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T15:01:55.8211866-05:00
The military is you only real hope of survival against attack helicopters and tanks. If it's domestic you are hoping soldiers all go awol and won't fight?
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-19T15:02:34.2331256-05:00
Eh, I understand your view there but let's be honest: the reason noone has invaded the U.S. is because it's a suicide mission. Too many rednecks and gangsters. Plus you got the Mexican cartels that would lose their drug and coyote businesses so they would stand in arms, and then there are those friendly Canadians eh.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T15:03:40.4623997-05:00
Then why haven't we invaded china, India, etc
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-19T15:05:03.0953577-05:00
We are tight allies with India for one. Two, China has a billion solders ready to fight to the last man.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T15:05:24.3585666-05:00
Btw, I did enjoy shooting. But not enough I'd want everyone around me armed all the time.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T15:06:10.8486929-05:00
So invasion isn't really about guns.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T15:06:23.9393448-05:00
They might not fight ... Theyd have to be demoralized or overwhelmed first. Knowing every home has armed citizens in it does that pretty well. Tanks and choppers? Again, what do you think the people living in their dirt homes in Iraq and Afganistan have been doing for the past couple decades? Wrecking armored vehicles left and right.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T15:08:53.7145926-05:00
Whats your take on the latest incident, that racist guy? Surely it would have been better he couldn't access firearms so easily.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-19T15:10:22.3242966-05:00
He was planning that for a while, if his moron of a dad didn't give his drug addict son a gun it would have been a different weapon, bomb, etc.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-19T15:12:01.6064495-05:00
For the racist, it's a pure example of why we need to stop being such a touchy feely save the whales society and get back to only the strong survive. Chances are that family line would have been wiped out a long time ago; problem never happens.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T15:13:45.9082116-05:00
Uhh...Ok. Not a little unrealistic?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T15:18:52.1577009-05:00
Him maybe not having a gun could have helped. He could have driven a box truck full of explosive materials into the place too. Who knows. Crazies do crazy. But if a person in the church was also holding ... Several people holding even ... Could have changed everything and there would still be one less crazy person out there.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-19T15:21:02.1706011-05:00
Is it unrealistic or is it more unrealistic to think we can just save everyone, cure cancer, cure world hunger, world peace, etc. and maintain a functional population? Whether you do it now through wars, evolution, starvation, disease, etc. or save everyone and have to choose who dies later on; you're gonna have to come to terms, a higher death to birth ratio is gonna be needed.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T15:21:40.1105307-05:00
And no one would have died without having the means to protect themselves on their person, less victimization, and instant justice and peace of mind for everyone involved. The killer wouldn't be in a court room with the possibility of getting off on mental illness or anything of that nature. He'd just be dead and that'd be the end of it.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-19T15:25:18.4523295-05:00
Misconception of temporary insanity. In SC he has no chance at that. Additionally, people who get that end up in a worse place than prison. Once they are deemed sane, they go to max security at the prison. It's not like they just "get away with it." you know.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T15:31:46.0729836-05:00
Living at all is getting away with it as far as im concerned. Life in prison is not equal to death. If it gave you a warm and fuzzy to have the man who slaughtered you family only get put in a mental institution, then good for you. You have much less attachment to your loved ones than most. Maybe he'll shoot a smile your way from across the courtroom.
tajshar2k says2015-06-19T15:33:07.1884495-05:00
You do realize, banning assault rifles aren't going to change a damn thing right? I'm sure criminals will just buy a Mini Uzi.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T15:34:21.0151632-05:00
Or make some death dealing machine in their garage from spare hardware from Lowes. It's all the same.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T15:35:08.7208806-05:00
Kinda like how you ban all contraband in prison and they still manage to MacGyver a shank out of something or other.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-19T15:35:53.6260626-05:00
If only they could MacGruber those weapons instead. Fail everytime. J/k
tajshar2k says2015-06-19T15:36:50.7447615-05:00
@o0jeannie0o Canada has a population of 30 million, its easy to do that.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T23:13:08.4564108-05:00
"He'd just be dead and that'd be the end of it". Taking guns to Church can not be the answer being suggested surely?
Kreakin says2015-06-19T23:14:36.8453154-05:00
If you can buy a gun easily then why not chemical or biological weapons also?
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-19T23:27:36.9018316-05:00
@Kreakin Really? That's a bit of a jump. However, speaking from education, creating a chemical weapon is relatively easy actually. You would be surprised what you could put together with the cleaners under your sink and a few other chemicals from Wal-Mart and the hardware store.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T23:34:20.7589486-05:00
If you can own one tool designed to efficiently kill people then why not others, dead is dead after all so why not over the counter nerve agent sprays etc. My point is that at some point common sense has to kick in and restrictions put on deadly weapons designed for that sole purpose. Sooner or later guns will be restricted and harsh penalties for ownership enforced. People won't be able to buy them and holding one illegally will be a much bigger deal. Most other countries have removed guns from society for the better and with none of the issues people raise.
mwedwards says2015-06-20T01:42:18.4219751-05:00
@Krekin: Who cares if other countries have banned guns. It didn't do a darn thing and made problems worse. Let's examine the UK. Firstly http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DJ-KA2WhhLo/UNZr8agpVqI/AAAAAAAAFH4/f6rrTVN7q6I/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png Well first thing that strikes us is that there was a massive spike in homicide after the ban. So basically the empirical evidence rejects the idea that no guns equals less violence, that is just not true. Now from 2003-2010 we see a decrease (the cause will be shown on the 'secondly' portion) and then it goes back up a little, suggesting that it will probably flat line from here. What I find interesting is that now the rates are basically equal to the rates PRIOR to the gun ban. So now we see the same amount of deaths as before the ban, meaning that in the end it made basically no difference. Well, that isn't entirely true. There are a lot more police. Which leads us into part 2: Secondly, http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3F3VyqudNyc/UNkZXvslOgI/AAAAAAAAFKk/TVeWHPiBAX0/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-12-24+at++Monday,+December+24,+10.11+PM.png Essentially what had to happen was an extreme increase of the police force to try and counter the extreme increase of crime. Only then at around 2003 when the initial increase of the police happen did the crime decrease, not because people did not have guns.
Deathbydefault says2015-06-20T03:26:02.0805259-05:00
It's easy to say "ban all guns" without thinking of what would happen afterwords. If you truly believe that just throwing out a law that says "you can't have that gun" stops people from having it then you might as well be a rock with your presented intelligence. It's like saying "oh those teenagers drive so fast down that 45mph road so lets lower the speedlimit to 30mph". What about all the gangster? The unidentified guns? Illegal Immigrates can sneak guns in, so can the drug industries. They'll make a lot of money too, and they know it. So all your going to have is a bunch of dead and raped families that couldn't properly defend themselves, have a untraceable bullet in their heads and the police crime solving rate for these types of murders will drop to around 17% So if you honestly want that for my country, screw you, please have a terrible day.
Deathbydefault says2015-06-20T03:28:14.7922780-05:00
Ugh, i didn't check for spelling errors before posting.... Bad mistake :T
Deathbydefault says2015-06-20T03:40:24.7615156-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality Good, we actually agree on something :D I read the comments and that murderer one struck me a bit to be honest. It made me realize that by my belief system if I simply murder a guy who murders my family then he's just gone and that's it, very anticlimactic. So I guess I'm pro torture now. I don't think I could torture someone but if they killed my family I doubt I'd have a moral hold back on it. It would honestly be a memory to smile on down the road. Back to topic.... As far as guns go there are to many in the country already, and too many more ways to get them in, to simply say "no more of this gun". I think anyone with more than 0.01% of the common level of intelligence could see how that would play out.
Kreakin says2015-06-20T04:39:50.7872917-05:00
@mwedwads - "Who cares if other countries have banned guns. It didn't do a darn thing and made problems worse". Your info is out of date, not to mention utter BS. Adopting an abusive tone is also not a great way for others to read your comment and think "yes, he sounds like a level headed person, I'd trust him with a lethal firearm". Grow up and have a adult conversation or go cry somewhere else.
Kreakin says2015-06-20T04:45:30.2617096-05:00
@Deathbydefault - You would torture people rather than let the law sort it out? Another nut-bar who shouldn't be anywhere near anything sharp let alone own gun.
tajshar2k says2015-06-20T07:17:00.7125761-05:00
Banning all guns from public is impossible.
Kreakin says2015-06-20T07:19:47.7498805-05:00
I would disagree. It's normal in most 1st world countries. It would take a few years but it's far from impossible.
Kreakin says2015-06-20T07:21:02.1043559-05:00
You can see from this poll that with each mass killing public opinion is slowly changing.
tajshar2k says2015-06-20T07:23:29.6098710-05:00
It worked in other countries, but it won't work here. We have too many illegal guns in the country, and its impossible to crack down on them. Not to mention some also come from Mexico.
tajshar2k says2015-06-20T07:24:01.1062710-05:00
The church shooting could have been prevented with stronger background checks.
Kreakin says2015-06-20T07:27:42.0146511-05:00
If the public want it it can happen. Hunting rifles and shooting ranges I couldn't see going but only so may mass killings can happen before they have to put in some sort of control. It might be a profitable and popular industry and protected by the Constitution but things change. Sometimes thing are no longer fit for purpose and rightly need updating by popular consensus.
mwedwards says2015-06-20T10:18:06.7802269-05:00
@Kreakin: "Your info is out of date, not to mention utter BS." First off this information is not BS, it is true, that's what happened. The information came from a government website, and I assume that their government is not lying about this because it shows the results of the ban we just awful. A less honest government would try to cover this up. As for the date, well yeah, but I could not find any past 2012 and since this was made by the government I decided that it was probably more trustworthy than the 2012 data. But here is some of that data if you want it. http://www.citizensreportuk.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/homicides-per-year.jpg And frankly I care very little for those kind of comments when you basically just pull them out of thin air and do not provide any counter sights or graphs. Yes, there is no data for after, but that doesn't mean that the argument dies. The only way it dies is if you are able to counter it with data, you do not. " Adopting an abusive tone is also not a great way for others to read your comment and think," What on Earth is this. I apologize if I offended you or anyone by using an "abusive tone," but I'm pretty sure I didn't use that tone, henceforth I probably offended no one. ""yes, he sounds like a level headed person, I'd trust him with a lethal firearm,"" Nothing I said did not suggest I was levelheaded, I was using actual data to support my claims. This comment is completely unjustified. "Grow up and have a adult conversation or go cry somewhere else." I am trying to have a conversation where we recognize the data and do not simply refute it because we don't like it. That would be an adult conversation, and you have failed to do this. And really? "go cry somewhere else." I did not have that tone, and even if I did, the evidence supports what I am saying, crying tone or not.
tajshar2k says2015-06-20T11:03:44.7888799-05:00
@Kreakin, Even if the government went into every gun owners house, and stole their gun. The crime rate isn't going to decrease. Your forgetting one part, criminals will still be able to get guns. For the government to even attempt something like that, they need to spend a huge budget which will end up going to waste. We should also legal gun owners to protect themselves, while passing a federal law for mandatory background checks, and making sure guns do not go in the hands of criminals. I see your point, but for what your saying, it should have been done a long time ago. Its too late for the United States, but we need to make to best of what our choices offer us.
triangle.128k says2015-06-20T11:11:34.7167168-05:00
I didn't expect this to trigger a flame war.
mystery_man43 says2015-06-21T07:46:36.8464035-05:00
"If you can buy a gun easily then why not chemical or biological weapons also?" -Kreakin LOL Are you kidding me?
Kreakin says2015-06-21T09:41:04.6509956-05:00
Nope, why not? A machine gun can easily kill hundreds of people just like a dose of chlorine gas. Dead is dead after all, why be so sentimental over the method?
mwedwards says2015-06-21T13:22:15.1587953-05:00
Well, chemical and biological weapons are considered WMDs, so that's one reason they are different. In the case of chlorine gas, well, victims typically have no clue what is happening till it's too late. At least with a machine gun people know what is happening and can defend themselves.
Preston says2015-06-21T16:20:08.8010986-05:00
@Kreakin you arent from the US you wont understand, here cultures varry every 500 miles or so, we have a southern culture, a NY culture, A jersey culture, ect. You have to convince everyone to support giving up a constitution amendment, then reduce crime by 100%. That is impossible. Guns using in shootings are handguns, which are usually able to be trafficked illegally. Then if its used for killing it isnt a legally owned gun used to shoot someone, so we couldn't have stopped it by illegalizing guns. I mean common sense says 'if you can hide it people wont see it' and thus if you can hide a gun, people wont see it. It can be snuck around even when illegal, and its not like killers say 'Am i breaking laws?' you just dont understand the reality of the situation.
LaJei says2015-06-22T05:00:50.4437636-05:00
This is a very tricky topic. But to point out first, I am fairly sure the American constitution was made around the 1800s to 1830s, am I correct?. This was around the time a musket would have taken a minute to reload. Currently we now have machine guns and a bunch of other rapid fire machines. Maybe the occasional pistol might be acceptable but an army grade assault rifle to get to the shops? Out of question. And while the immediate illegal use of guns may be high, the long- term benefits of such a ban and background checks would outweigh that of a less than a decade spike in gun possession.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-22T05:31:03.4768678-05:00
@LaJei EEEEEEE *buzzer sound* wrong Hoping you aren't an American citizen, conversely, if you aren't why would you be contributing to this poll? The constitution was drafted in 1787, underwent public scrutiny and was finally ratified in 1790 (by two votes). THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT TO AMERICAN CITIZENS TO THIS DAY, WITHOUT IT WE ARE NOT AMERICA. STUDY IT!!!! The only documents close to importance are Bill of Rights ratified 1791 and the Declaration of Independence 1776 (arguably the most important in the time period but not presently). The fact that you don't know the most important document to Americans is quite concerning and disqualifies you in my mind for this argument. The second amendment of the BILL OF RIGHTS gives American citizens the right to bear arms: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Constitution does not make mention of the right to bear arms. The second Amendment in the Bill of Rights (amendments TO the Constitution; two separate documents) gives the people the right to bear arms which *and this is the most important part* SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON. This was placed there so the Government could not limit or remove this right. Everyone makes a fuss over the whole "Militia" word "We don't have a militia any longer" No we don't, not officially. However, at any point in time, American's have the ability to reform the militia to oppose the regular army controlled by the Federal Government in order to protect our rights and liberties. The government is by the people for the people. If at any time the people feel the government has gotten out of control, unmanageable, or working for any entity outside of for the people, we hold the RIGHT to disband the government starting fresh. The reason for the second amendment was to ensure the people had the ability to organize and defend themselves against an oppressive leadership. Especially if said leadership refuses to comply with the people's wishes to step down from office. Think about this, a government comes into power that starts enforcing new taxes, laws, rules, regulations, etc. that benefit their own wealth, power, and agenda. The people vote to remove them from power but they refuse or change the law stating they are now the "supreme ruler(s)" of the nation and call on the military to stand against the population. The people need the ability to defend themselves and the nation from said leadership. How would we accomplish this with handguns and 5 round magazines when the regular military is using assault rifles, automatic weapons, etc.? Now some guy out there will argue "Well they will have tanks, missiles, planes, explosives, etc. does that mean you need them too?" No, we don't. Any thoughtful individual would have that line. However, you do need competitive arms. Final note: The reason we have not been invaded is mostly because other countries understand not only would they need to fight off our military supremacy, but they would then also have to fight off 330,000,000 (330 million) well armed citizens.
Preston says2015-06-22T09:48:17.3685424-05:00
@LaJei the purpose doesnt revolve around a musket it revolves around protection of citizens, and if a military uses a high grade lvl of guns then to defend ourselves it is required we obtain the same/similar.
Crackshot says2015-06-22T09:48:35.1584568-05:00
Guns and a Solution No matter how you feel about guns, you should find this most interesting: This may explain why there has never been an attempt on Obama. In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States , who later died from the wound. In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States . In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States . In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States . In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant. In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office. In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office. In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen , TX. In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory. In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service. In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US . In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant. In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech. In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep.Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others. In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people. In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis . In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown , CT. As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns. Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders. SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.
Preston says2015-06-22T09:52:53.3538241-05:00
@Crackshot hahahahahaha, you make false references, and even refrence people from the democratic party before the view switch, ever notice that dems are more liberal, when they used to be conservative?? Yea Party does not determine whether or not someone decides to shoot up a school, this is a correlation doesn't prove causation argument.
Gwydion777 says2015-06-22T11:05:17.0697811-05:00
Kreaklin- "Nope, why not? A machine gun can easily kill hundreds of people just like a dose of chlorine gas. Dead is dead after all, why be so sentimental over the method?" Maybe because of our 8th amendment rights? No cruel or unusual punishment? Perhaps you have lost all morals and humanity along with your gun rights.
Kreakin says2015-06-22T11:16:37.2896620-05:00
You mean like injecting people with chemicals to kill them??
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-22T11:21:25.1619979-05:00
LOL that doesn't seem very efficient.
Kreakin says2015-06-22T11:25:20.8917128-05:00
Abolish the lethal injection and bring back the firing squad?
tajshar2k says2015-06-22T12:16:59.6798454-05:00
Lethal injection is more humane though.
Preston says2015-06-22T12:18:09.0613802-05:00
How does this relate to the death penalty?
Varrack says2015-06-22T12:19:56.9724582-05:00
@Crackshot - I seriously hope you're joking. There is just so much wrong with that comment.
Preston says2015-06-22T12:20:31.8278017-05:00
Lets just bring back the Guillotine, lol jk
tajshar2k says2015-06-22T12:23:33.7429000-05:00
@Crackpot, I can be a Republican and buy a gun, and 4 minutes later I can say I'm a democrat.
kkshake says2015-06-22T14:12:04.0081792-05:00
Background checks are pointless because the only people who would agree to them and not illegally obtain their weapons are a.) not the one's you'll need to be worried about or b.) Able to get through a background check because they haven't had their "break" yet
kkshake says2015-06-22T14:15:25.4436545-05:00
Lethal injections is not more humane by the way. It has been shown that one of the many chemical reagents in lethal injections paralyzes the person so that they can not react to the effects of the injection. However, experts agree that the injections can be excruciatingly painful.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-22T23:10:13.2337084-05:00
"Another nut-bar who shouldn't be anywhere near anything sharp let alone own gun." Kreakin you call him a nut job but let the law work it's magic and he'll be on a jury at some point making the same calls. He's just like everyone else. I don't see how disarming him changes that. Youre just making him have to use a different weapon is all. "This was around the time a musket would have taken a minute to reload." That fact hasn't stopped wars from coming about. Weapon progression hasn't stopped anything. War never changes.
USN276 says2015-06-22T23:13:39.3241413-05:00
@jeannie? How did it possibly work? First off, you can own handguns and rifles in Canada, and the homicide rate is already VERY low. Second, how did preventing legal gun owners (who already went through background checks) from concealed carrying firearms done ANYTHING to curve crime?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-23T11:00:41.4151840-05:00
Literally the only way that works is that guns are lost or stolen much easier when theyre all over (in your car, in your desk, just generally on your person). People misplace things, just like a wallet or a purse, it's important and high up there on your list of stuff to manage throughout the day ... But if you carry youre more likely than anyone else to lose the thing to a criminal. Then more criminals have guns. That is absolutely the only connection between legal people having them and the potential for higher crime rates. Statistics have proven though that even in light of that happening ... Those places that allow for carry permits still have less crime, still. So, it's really asinine to think that further regulation on a citizen is going to stop the issue. You can rent APC's and Bradley's down at a range in Arizona and ride on this guys property shooting a .50 on top at demo'ed cars and no place in AZ is even on the list as far as high crime goes.
CookieMonster9 says2015-06-23T23:36:14.0667257-05:00
@Kreakin Well if you were a murder would you rather be able to murder people that don't have there hands on a gun or people that have their hands on a gun? Plus read the second amendment.
Mister_Man says2015-06-23T23:41:55.0290865-05:00
Lol, second amendment... "I legally have the right to do something, thanks to documents written in the 18th century, therefore it's morally permissible in modern day America."
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-24T00:22:16.7161187-05:00
@Mister_Man Your response makes no sense at all and carries no thought or foundation. I take your response as sarcasm. So, where is the cutoff for what is still valid and what isn't? Since they are old, are all religions invalidated? Is Mathematics void? Most of our laws were written hundreds of years ago, and if you take other nations and cultures into account, thousands of years ago, are they now void? Since you think that Amendment II of the Bill of Rights is too old to be valid, this intrinsically means that the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and Constitution of the United States of America are all void; are we now under English rule? Heck, if we follow your logic, everything that happened before X date is void, so who are we? What are we? Who is in charge? Do we throw out every piece of writing and every aspect of human existence? Should we go back to living in caves and rubbing sticks together?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-24T07:25:40.3650681-05:00
@Mister_Man Dont push your morals on me buddy.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-24T07:28:15.0420426-05:00
With all the other immoral stuff going on around here you're gonna come at me with guns not being morally permissible?? Get real.
Max.Wallace says2015-06-27T22:42:30.6225450-05:00
None of the above, Period.
stargate says2015-06-28T08:46:21.3327927-05:00
It is our right to own guns, I mean 88 out of every 100 people in the USA have one
Berend says2015-06-28T14:34:57.8496136-05:00
"If everyone had a gun, guess what happens when someone tries to do a mass shooting XD" Not what you think, especially when a study shows as such. That case you mentioned is almost NEVER the case and just a cop out of pure fantasy fabricated by the mind. It seems easy in the mind as it does thinking you stand a chance in a fight against four men. You're not god damn rambo, CyberConor.
Berend says2015-06-28T14:40:38.1542270-05:00
"A civilized populace shouldn't need tools to kill each other so easily available. Guns should be stored at clubs and only used on registered ranges." Anything is a tool. I could kill you with a piece of paper. Banning something completely on the bases it has been used to kill in mass shootings will not work nor stop mass killing nor will it do any good as pure criminalization and banning things from the people has never worked as history will show you. That is why the War on Drugs is a complete failure, Kreakin.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-29T11:44:39.2216046-05:00
"If everyone had a gun, guess what happens when someone tries to do a mass shooting XD" Not what you think, especially when a study shows as such. I agree somewhat. Look what happens when a person decides to behead someone in the streets of London. So defenseless they dont even lift a finger. If someone had a gun they might not have stepped in ... Though their likelyhood of doing so is much higher than if all they were allowed to carry was a pocket knife. No ones gonna approach the madman with the machete then.
Midnight1131 says2015-07-01T13:12:34.0786577-05:00
And the homepage never updated again...
PericIes says2015-07-01T20:23:32.3347605-05:00
I get having handguns and shotguns and hunting rifles and whatnot. Those are tools that people can/do use in everyday life, for protection or hunting or sport. But why do you need assault rifles? This is a genuine question. I'm curious. I'd be interested in discussing it with someone.
tajshar2k says2015-07-02T05:58:41.2049889-05:00
Its not a matter of needing them, its a matter of what effect it will make banning them. Its not free to just ban assault rifles, the government will definitely need to shell out big bucks to make sure it doesn't stay on the streets. Even then, I do not think it will make a difference. Some guy will find a way to get it, and some shooting rampage will definitely happen. I really couldn't care less if it was banned or not, but I only voted no, because I do not think it would make any substancial difference, In terms to self-defense, most CCW owners could likely take out the shooter with a handgun, if its an accurate shot anyways. The only difference is the firepower of assault rifle.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-02T09:07:29.3238971-05:00
@Pericles Domestic enemies and defense. If the enemy has them then we need them. Same logic a police force would use. No one argues that a police force should be limited to tazers and batons only. They're up against criminals that have more than that. My other argument for them is the force factor. Everyone having a knife for defense doesn't level the playing field enough. A handgun does quite a bit more, but still leaves you vulnerable in some regards (say group attacks). The higher you go up on the force scale the more capable one feeble person is from staving off more numerous and stronger attackers. You could say the same goes for when when crazy person wants to shoot up a place too, but so long as the number of crazies vs. Sane law abiding citizens stays in the proper proportion (with law abiders vastly outnumbering the crazy ones) then it makes sense to empower those people.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-02T09:08:26.7546020-05:00
People carry guns because cops are too heavy.
Max.Wallace says2015-07-02T20:41:17.2257471-05:00
Wimps don't own guns, but they own .Gov.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-03T05:12:15.7681965-05:00
Good point. And owning a.Gov isn't as effective, hence why they continuously try to feed it and change it. If you want security and self satisfaction in life its so much easier to do it on a personal level than to go through government and try to force people to do things your way along the way. They'll learn that eventually.
Epicular says2015-07-03T21:51:04.3656003-05:00
Pistols/Hunting rifles? Maybe..... Assault weapons? Why would you need them?
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-07-03T21:52:54.0418992-05:00
@picular What do you think the difference between a rifle and an assault rifle is?
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-07-03T23:01:40.8561773-05:00
@Epicular Allow me to explain the difference between the two rifles for you. Let's clear up a misunderstanding first. Understand that Assault Rifles are not civilian sold (generally speaking with specific exceptions), Assault Rifles are military grade fire systems utilizing fully automatic fire capabilities. An AR-15 is NOT an Assault Rifle, it is semi-automatic just like hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns. The "AR" in "AR-15" stands for "ArmaLite Rifle" which is the company that developed it in the '50s. So, every time someone goes on TV or the Democrats stand up talking about banning "Assault Rifles" and they reference the AR-15, you now understand just how ignorant they are in the subject of fire systems and you now also understand that they have no business discussing the subject of gun control. Assuming "hunting rifle" is referring to the generic "Hunting Rifle" understanding; meaning deer, elk, etc., a hunting rifle generally fires a 30 06 (thirty odd six) round. An AR-15 fires either a .223 or 5.56 round, some barrels fire the 7.62 NATO round. Since the 7.62 NATO is more powerful, let's use that here. Although you hear how much worse the AR is compared to hunting rifles, this is not true. The 7.62 NATO round is actually a more humane round which is one reason why NATO adopted it to replace the 30 06 which was fired out of the M1 GARAND in WWII. Compared to the 7.62 NATO round, the 30 06 blows HOLES in the target, shredding everything inside as it tumbles through the mass it hits. The 7.62 round in the AR-15 hits a more centralized destructive path. I could attempt to explain this but showing would be better. Here is a link to a youtube video showing the differences in destructive power using a pumpkin as the target: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sVwFinqJGc What are the other differences? Well....Cosmetic really. Over the past decade or so, hunting rifles have undergone a transformation for ergonomic comfort and to market to the military communities as "similar look-and-feel" to what they are used to holding. Any serious fire system user will have their style, their feel, their comfort zone. For those not into fire systems that much, it's like having a car for years then getting a rental for the first time....It just doesn't feel right, the brakes are different, handling is a bit off, etc. When we hear "Hunting Rifle" we immediately think of our father's or grandfather's style rifle as can be seen here: http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?fid=002B&cid=031&tid=001 Well these days, with ergonomic comfort such a big deal, manufacturers followed suit rebuilding the "shell" of the fire systems to make them more comfortable to hold. See this link http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-25.aspx Since manufacturers compete for government contracts, they get to talk with our military men and women to find out what works even better. So they have been changing the "shell" to be even more comfortable and familiar, attempting to make the fire system feel as natural as possible. Which brings us to the current style of: http://www.ruger.com/products/sr762/models.html Here is the same fire system just a different shell. Just including this one to show that this system can be barreled and chambered for 30-06 as well: http://onlylongrange.com/bn36-carbine-assassin/ Look familiar to what everybody wants to ban? That's because it is EXACTLY what everyone is screaming to ban. Funny party is, they are the same EXACT fire system, just with different "shells" based on comfort (and a few small changes in the mechanics providing better recoil protection and better efficiency. It's like you walking outside in a full length Amish style dress which is OK. The next day is hotter so for comfort you walk outside in a respectable knee length skirt and all of a sudden everyone starts screaming and calling the police saying you should never wear that again and you're the worst skum of the Earth and if you don't give up your skirt and go back to the Amish dress you're advocating for the murder of innocent men, women, and children; continue adding all the anti-gun supporter attack lines you wish here. And all of this anger and hatred why? Because you changed your shell to something a bit more comfortable. But yup....That's it.....That is the BIG HUGE fuss in America today. I hope you learned something today that you didn't know and maybe I even got you thinking that maybe just maybe these AR-15 rifles aren't as bad as people make them out to be. It's just fear of what we don't know.
Epicular says2015-07-04T08:13:40.4433831-05:00
^tl;dr Allow me to rephrase my statement. You shouldn't need any fully-automatic weapons for any reason. Nor any magazine sizes that would allow you to massacre a church in Charleston.
dmussi12 says2015-07-04T08:50:47.9089598-05:00
If someone broke into my house with an automatic weapon, I'd rather be able to match his rate of fire than not.
tajshar2k says2015-07-05T08:52:28.5334868-05:00
This is sad. 39 people do not give a damn about what happened.
Juris_Naturalis says2015-07-05T09:48:29.3025734-05:00
@Epiculiar, any magazine size is sufficient to kill people who don't shoot back. And he had a handgun.
dmussi12 says2015-07-05T10:46:43.2446620-05:00
@tajshar It's a right. Just like voter ID laws disenfranchise minorities and the poor, requiring background checks will disproportionately disenfranchise the same groups, not only because they will more likely have a crime record, but because they will likely take more time and cost the buyer money: the same reason voter ID laws are not used.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-07-05T15:30:57.0323290-05:00
Here we go again.......White people are rich, white people are holding us down, white people only care about white people, blah blah blah. What do we never hear? Sorry, I am a black American who valued drugs, the thug life, and looking cool over education and knowledge; my failures are my own fault and no one else's.
TheOpinionist says2015-07-06T11:44:08.2028518-05:00
Suger?
Berend says2015-07-07T20:23:42.8937509-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality "I agree somewhat. Look what happens when a person decides to behead someone in the streets of London. So defenseless they dont even lift a finger. If someone had a gun they might not have stepped in ... Though their likelyhood of doing so is much higher than if all they were allowed to carry was a pocket knife. No ones gonna approach the madman with the machete then." Please support this claim. Also, people can defend themselves fine just as much so with their hands or items around them or even a knife. Most times then not, the statistics I spoke of actually shows people are more likely to get hurt. This is why, and don't strawman me questioning you with how it is in London, background checks to prevent those who have the mental capability to do such things to not get a Gun. Sorry, but if you have PTSD, you should not freely be able to just get a gun. Again, no one is Rambo and shouldn't write themselves as if they are, something the NRA tends to think and do. 1) http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html 2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/10/school-shootings-since-newtown-_n_5480811.html 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war 4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgQU9JtRQ4E 5) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm 6) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm Compare some of these war deaths to deaths involving guns in America, that is so Laissez Faire on them, since Sandy Hook. I'm not saying we need to be Euro level, but there needs to be control. You need to be x age and meet x requirements to drive a car, said age to drink and smoke, yet a 9 year old can walk into a gun range and shoot an Uzi, which resulted in the death of the instructor. This is absolutely asinine. "Number of emergency department visits for assault: 2.1 million" "All homicides ====== Number of deaths: 16,121 Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.1" "Firearm homicides ====== Number of deaths: 11,208 Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.5" From the 2015 CDC study. Listen to this. "All firearm deaths ======= Number of deaths: 33,636 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6" That's insane and doesn't happen in any other developed nation.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-08T07:46:43.7458347-05:00
Ok. A bank is being robbed and hostages are being held with guns ... What do the people who step in to save the day need to be armed with to break this up? Knives? Is anyone going to break it up with anything less than what the criminals are holding? Its not the movies ... No ones gonna Jean Claude Van Damme their way through a gang of bank robbers. What do you think the cops are going to roll in with? Nothing short of what their intel says the enemy is holding. A person is shooting up a school and executing people at gunpoint. How do we stop him? Knives? ... Not even knives ... Those arent allowed in schools either. A person is hijacking an airplane with a knife. Are the people on the plane empowered enough to stop him? No because their knives were taken away. Now all they have are their fists ... And only 20% of the plane is physically capable of getting the upper hand in that situation and more than half of those are in middle or window seats. Give people the weapons for the situation and level the playing field.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-08T07:52:54.1041073-05:00
If you want real statistics on the matter ill start a poll for you to prove my point. A man is holding someone at gunpoint and you have nothing. You have to assume based on the others he has slayed in front of you that he will kill at least this person and more before cops arrive. Do you attack him unarmed and get killed before the cops get there -or- wait and hope you arent one of the unlucky ones to get it before they come to help.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-08T07:55:48.4196221-05:00
Actually that might be a bad poll ... How should I word it. People are all talk and I dont think it'd be representative of what they would actually do in a life and death situation.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-08T07:58:34.8882892-05:00
"Again, no one is Rambo and shouldn't write themselves as if they are, something the NRA tends to think and do." Exactly. No one is able to defend themselves with just their bare hands against criminals with a gun, like Rambo could. They need an equalizer. Something that can allow the oldest most frail woman to be able to defend herself against the worlds strongest man.
awesomepants says2015-07-08T12:47:41.0299508-05:00
Kreakin is a moron
awesomepants says2015-07-08T12:47:51.4638622-05:00
Kreakin is a moron
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-08T13:41:47.1682204-05:00
Dont say it 3 times or he appears behind you in the mirror ...
Max.Wallace says2015-07-09T19:29:11.7589903-05:00
Gun control people are to damn stupid to control the gun.
tajshar2k says2015-07-09T19:31:12.9172661-05:00
Dat grammar though.
steffon66 says2015-07-11T17:23:49.4258145-05:00
Lol I dont think guns make us any more polite but an armed society is much suffer than a non armed society as our leaders could and would easily strip us of our freedoms and do whatever makes them money. Our leaders have always been about money and give us beliefs that make life convenient for them and its easy because we will believe anything our feelings have adapted to. Most of us will anyways. So I would say an armed society is a safer society because our leaders cannot be trusted.
Max.Wallace says2015-07-11T19:43:44.8543308-05:00
You cannot control your own gun, so you wish to steal mine. What a bunch of wimp ass tyrants, with a bunch of guns behind them. Pope style.
TheOpinionist says2015-07-11T19:52:39.5617737-05:00
Making guns against the law relies on the assumption that lawbreakers will follow the law
steffon66 says2015-07-11T23:20:55.4847453-05:00
I agree. The criminals will still have the guns we will be unable to defend ourselves and have far less power. Taking our guns away gives our leaders all the power because we will do what we must to survive and all they have to do is threaten us and most will do what they want. Without guns we are not in control of our government but without boycotting and protesting we might as well not have guns. People used to stand up for what they BELIEVED IN while today people don't stand up for what they KNOW.
Max.Wallace says2015-08-03T00:47:58.7522821Z
The incremental CREEPERS.
OFT60 says2015-08-03T20:02:06.6912356Z
I will keep and bear arms even if it upsets the Regressives. You see Regressives want gun control for the law abiding people and never address the issue of guns in the hands of criminals. Regressives will feel safely if the law abiding is unarmed because the criminals well do them no harm as they believe in the pea brain they have.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-12-13T14:40:54.6709089Z
@Everyone FOR Gun Bans & Restrictions (other than increased background checks) -- Did you know that recent statistical analyses show that crime, including violent crime, gun crime and even gun related homicides have been on a steady decline since the expiration of the national "Assault Weapons Ban" in 2004...Well that is, of course, unless you reside in (or pull your data from) "Gun Free Zones". || Point #1: That's right, we already applied a ban on so-called "Assault Weapons", using mass, sweeping definitions for bans during the Clinton Era presidency; from 1994 - 2004, crime rose, including violent crime. Conversely, starting at the conclusion of the national "Assault Weapons Ban" in 2004, crime rates have steadily dropped, including violent crimes and gun related homicides; even those stubborn gun control advocates, including politicians, acknowledge these statistics are true and valid. || Point #2: Point of clarification and more precise dissemination of facts, data and statistics; Gun "Approved" zones as well as states allowing the purchase and use of so-called "Assault Weapons" have steadily declining crime rates including decreasing gun related homicide numbers...While...You guessed it...Gun free zones as well as more heavily regulated states (including states with additional gun bans) have increasing crime rates including rising gun related homicide numbers and mass shooting events. || What do you think about that bit of fact?
Max.Wallace says2016-09-21T01:02:05.3474478Z
I will not change my stance, tyrant. Period.
Max.Wallace says2017-03-26T00:44:21.0955922Z
Considering the state of the planet, all polls are meaningless.
videogameboysean says2017-11-23T05:28:49.1276642Z
I like that. An armed society is a polite society. Sounds like peace to me .
Debating_Horse says2018-09-15T15:25:02.0036466Z
Gun control? Nope! I'd like to keep my guns because I'm not crazy! You only make things worse by banning firearms, How are people supposed to protect themselves from harm or danger?

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.