Obama Signs Twenty-Three Executive Orders

[JYD]

But where is the line, and who gets to draw it? Who are you (or anyone) to say that I don't need to have an AR-15? It's the principles behind it and the precedent it sets that's concerning.

 

 

That's exactly why misinformation is perpetuated. People see the stock, the pistol grip, and other cosmetic similarities and get the wrong impression that it's an assault rifle. It's not, and I can assure you no hardcore military shit is available to civilians.

Because when we are equipping our mass murders better than any other nation, don't we have to look out for the welfare of our citizens (most importantly children)? That's why I'm the one to tell you you don't need an AR-15.

[NomarFachix]

Love it, gg Obama

[His Greatness]

Well, part of what I'm saying is geared towards those who think we should legally own automatic weapons. Again, it stemmed from ECN asking me if police should be able to carry fully automatic weapons (just checked, for clarification) and then if we should be able to buy an AR-15.

 

There's no reason for anyone to own a fully automatic weapon.

 

As far as an AR-15 goes, I admitted I didn't know much about them OR guns. But, I always do my research.

http://liberty.com/content/teenager-uses-ar-15-defend-home-intruder

 

This happened last week. Could he have thwarted the intruders with a Glock or any other handgun? Sure. But the fact is he picked up an AR-15. It wasn't out of malice, and he didn't have homicidal fantasies... he had to defend his sister. Maybe he felt more comfortable with the AR-15 and the superior range and precision it offered. Perhaps he felt that he needed more rounds to thwart the intruders, I don't know, but that family purchased that gun with self-defense (amongst other things) in mind, and it served its purpose.

 

I don't need to drive to work, it's walking distance. I don't need to have a big screen TV, but I still bought it because I liked it. I don't need to be posting this at all, but I still am because I want to. So when you ask me why I need an AR-15, my answer is that I don't, but I also don't need it to be taken away.

 

What happens when the "assault weapons" ban inevitably fails and does nothing? Do I really need to have more than one gun for self defense? Why not rubber bullets? etc. etc.

 

Okay, 30-100 rounds at the most for a semi-automatic AR-15. Why?

 

I just don't get that. Why do you need to pump 30 rounds into an intruder? Two intruders, 15 each? I still don't understand.

There isn't a by the book number to how many shots you need to deter an x amount of intruders. It's impossible to gauge a highly intense situation like that and how any individual person will handle themselves. It's also nearly impossible that each shot accurately hits its target. Either way, I don't felt too strongly about this because I feel like it's such a non-issue. Any gun owner with a modicum of proficiency can/should reload effortlessly.

 

let's say I don't even give a damn if someone owns an AR-15. I STILL support background checks on ALL gun purchases...fully support that, 100%.

Agreed on both counts.

[His Greatness]

Because when we are equipping our mass murders better than any other nation, don't we have to look out for the welfare of our citizens (most importantly children)? That's why I'm the one to tell you you don't need an AR-15.

wtf, no one is equipping mass murderers, we're (needlessly) unequipping honest citizens. Yes, we should do a better job screening, but there's no reason for another assault weapons ban that historically has made virtually no impact.

 

BTW, there was already an assault weapons ban in Connecticut when that kook went off. So there.

[Real Deal]

Let's jump to another issue, since I had people from Kansas messaging me and talking their heads off about it.

 

Would you be in favor of allowing fully automatics? Because we really don't need them...but why not allow us to buy them? That argument doesn't always work with everything...unless you're in favor of them, and I don't know very many people that are, outside of the nutcases in this state who would hunt people like they do deer if it was allowed.

[His Greatness]

My answer is not really, but we shouldn't take away any grandfathered ones.

[His Greatness]

Brandon, just say that you agree AR-15s shouldn't be banned, I know you do.

[Real Deal]

I'm honestly on the fence about it. Like I was saying, my main issues were to force everyone into background checks, both public and private buying...and then making sure that fully autos are staying banned.

 

Not really part of the discussion so far, but I don't think it's right for anyone to be able to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo, either, or advanced ballistic gear.

[His Greatness]

Not really part of the discussion so far, but I don't think it's right for anyone to be able to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo, either, or advanced ballistic gear.

eh, honestly, 6,000 rounds isn't that much for a single purchase. Regardless, it's still a lot of bullets, but how do you define what is excessive? What are you referring to when you say "advanced ballistic gear"?

[Real Deal]

eh, honestly, 6,000 rounds isn't that much for a single purchase. Regardless, it's still a lot of bullets, but how do you define what is excessive? What are you referring to when you say "advanced ballistic gear"?

The same way they did limit you with nasal spray, so you don't use it to make large amounts of meth. The same way Apple limited people to a couple of iPhone 5 purchases. The way some grocery stores put a 40-liter limit on pop/soda not too long ago (and I believe there's still a limit, and I have no idea why). I really don't know how they can determine that...based on average rounds used for hunting in a particular time frame, or whatever.

 

Collectors wouldn't need to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo. That doesn't make sense to me. And hunters wouldn't use that much, unless they are hunting gnats.

 

If it was up to me, really, I wouldn't allow anyone to buy anything a SWAT Team member would wear.

 

http://www.opticsplanet.com/gh-armor-systems-gh-delta-5-vest-lite-3a-tan.html

 

What is the need for that? And why even want it for $1,700?

 

I'm sure there are collectors who would love to get their hands on missiles, rocket launchers, and other fascinating weapons...but sometimes, you have to understand why it's just not available.

[His Greatness]

The same way they did limit you with nasal spray, so you don't use it to make large amounts of meth. The same way Apple limited people to a couple of iPhone 5 purchases. The way some grocery stores put a 40-liter limit on pop/soda not too long ago (and I believe there's still a limit, and I have no idea why). I really don't know how they can determine that...based on average rounds used for hunting in a particular time frame, or whatever.

 

Collectors wouldn't need to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo. That doesn't make sense to me. And hunters wouldn't use that much, unless they are hunting gnats.

Why does it have to be any of those? People who enjoy shooting know that you could burn through hundreds of rounds in a matter of hours. Yeah, it's a lot, but not really an overly suspicious purchase.

 

If it was up to me, really, I wouldn't allow anyone to buy anything a SWAT Team member would wear.

 

http://www.opticsplanet.com/gh-armor-systems-gh-delta-5-vest-lite-3a-tan.html

 

What is the need for that? And why even want it for $1,700?

 

I'm sure there are collectors who would love to get their hands on missiles, rocket launchers, and other fascinating weapons...but sometimes, you have to understand why it's just not available.

I kinda agree, but there should be some exceptions. Like, if you lived in Camden, why not let them incorporate a bulletproof vest in their daily outfit?

[Real Deal]

Camden still has people in it?

 

EDIT: Not just in the ground.

[NomarFachix]

Camden Discount Liquors was JUMPIN tonight when I drove by

[DunkinDerozan]

Why does it have to be any of those? People who enjoy shooting know that you could burn through hundreds of rounds in a matter of hours. Yeah, it's a lot, but not really an overly suspicious purchase.

 

 

Can people who like to go out and shoot hundreds of rounds of bullets not make a sacrifice if it means making your country safer?

[His Greatness]

Camden still has people in it?

 

EDIT: Not just in the ground.

Did you know that they laid off their cops. srs

 

Can people who like to go out and shoot hundreds of rounds of bullets not make a sacrifice if it means making your country safer?

First of all, that very question is self-contradictory. Who are we making safer exactly by capping purchases on ammo? It's not that I don't want to make a sacrifice, but I question whether or not it's the right decision.

 

It's just too easy to ban semi-automatic rifles and high capacity mags. Americans are reasonably upset and they want a solution. So they figure, let's take away the guns. Why not? It's worked before, right? (It hasn't.) The thing is, I think it's an underlying issue that lies much deeper than that. Of course, the head guys in charge don't want to even attempt at solving the problem, so they go with the cop out. And so now we Americans will have less firearms. Statistics will probably fluctuate, they might even drop a few numbers. But when that next thing happens—whatever it is—that gets us discussing guns again, they'll be touting a new solution that will probably be banning something else. Then everyone will be happy again for a while until more people die.

[Real Deal]

Did you know that they laid off their cops. srs

Meaning, all of their cops? LOL no.

[His Greatness]

Wouldn't it be great if they did though? How quick would that dwindle their population.