Featured Posts
cjsmom1
I don't understand, help the naive person
by cjsmom1
January 17, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Can someone please help me understand this whole gun debate issue. I honestly don't understand why someone would need an assault rifle or a gun that can fire 100 rounds in a minute. I understand wanting a regular gun to protect your family. I just don't understand why anyone would need such a powerful gun.

Also, for those who say they shouldn't be banned. How do you propose guns are kept out of criminals hands? How do you prevent people who should have never been allowed to buy the gun from getting them?

Please keep it civil ladies. I am honestly curious to hear others thoughts on this.

Replies

  • Rach7224
    January 17, 2013 at 9:50 PM
    Well if our government gets them what would we do if we needed to protect our selves from our own government? We have the right to bare arms so that our government cannot over power us. Im ok with more strict guidelines and mental evals etc. The last question is something that i cannot answer. Criminalsshouldnt have guns but they find ways no matter what laws or regilations there are because...well they dont care about the law lol.
  • Titana
    by Titana
    January 17, 2013 at 9:50 PM
    All I'm going to say is just because something is illegal doesn't mean no one will have it or do it. If guns are banned (some or all it doesn't matter) criminals will still have them.
  • Sweet_Carol_126
    January 17, 2013 at 9:58 PM

    I agree.  No reason for anyone to have assault guns but should have rifle to hunt and perhaps a revolver for personal protection.  But 100 shots in a minute or so is just not necessary.  But the gun trade especially with the assault weapons are big money with manufacturers and also for sales to countries for war.  No reason to have them at all.  It is the far right who support the rich and the oil industry, the arms indstry, etc.

  • cjsmom1
    by cjsmom1
    January 17, 2013 at 9:59 PM

    Interesting, I never thought about it for use against the government. I always thought about it for use against home invaders and stuff like that. You're right criminals will always find a away.

    Quoting Rach7224:

    Well if our government gets them what would we do if we needed to protect our selves from our own government? We have the right to bare arms so that our government cannot over power us. Im ok with more strict guidelines and mental evals etc. The last question is something that i cannot answer. Criminalsshouldnt have guns but they find ways no matter what laws or regilations there are because...well they dont care about the law lol.



  • cjsmom1
    by cjsmom1
    January 17, 2013 at 10:01 PM

    You're right criminals will find  a way to get it. I know NYC has the strictest gun laws and people just go out of state to get guns.

    Quoting Titana:

    All I'm going to say is just because something is illegal doesn't mean no one will have it or do it. If guns are banned (some or all it doesn't matter) criminals will still have them.



  • Anonymous 1
    by Anonymous 1
    January 17, 2013 at 10:04 PM

    I don't understand people's problem with the "well regulated" portion of  maintaining a well regulated militia. Regulated clip capacity, regulating the types of firearms civilians can own, regulating ownership by use of universal background checks  does not take away anyone's constitutional right to bear arms.  I also do not believe the spin that a well regulated militia was meaning a militia to defend itself against our government. It was written in that manner because at the time the US did not have a standing regulated government military.  Militias of civilians were used in place of the military. We have a government ran military, the national guard is the civilian equivalent to a regulated militia.  Too many people are trying to construe the right to bear arms to fit their own paranoia and agenda.

  • vinny25
    by vinny25
    January 17, 2013 at 10:28 PM

    only the people who obey the law will  give up their guns, leaving the criminals at an advantage. there is such thing as a black market and only the criminals will be left with guns. Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

  • vinny25
    by vinny25
    January 17, 2013 at 10:35 PM


    im sorry but I will have to disagree. it was percieved that way back in the day when there basically was only two side. democrat and republican. now there are conservatives, liberals and libertarian. It's far more complicated than saying the far right support the rich and oil industry, and so on. 

    On another note, I was never employed by a poor man. Neither will I be ok with giving them more help for him to be lazy. But thats just on my note. Theres also no reason to point the finger at anyside for something that is happening no matter which 'side' youre on.

    Quoting Sweet_Carol_126:

    I agree.  No reason for anyone to have assault guns but should have rifle to hunt and perhaps a revolver for personal protection.  But 100 shots in a minute or so is just not necessary.  But the gun trade especially with the assault weapons are big money with manufacturers and also for sales to countries for war.  No reason to have them at all.  It is the far right who support the rich and the oil industry, the arms indstry, etc.



  • momamanda
    January 17, 2013 at 10:48 PM

    I agree that there is no reason to own a gun that holds that much power!

  • lga1965
    by lga1965
    January 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM

     I don't understand either. Everything is backwards and upside down. Disturbing.

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN