Best
268 Comments
Post
  • #3
    !
    Horrible poll.

    Anyhow, banning guns has never been the answer. obama can try to steal our guns, like he steals our money, but the 2nd Amendment reaffirms we have the right to have weapons. There are a number of things that patriotic Americans can do to make this country safer. None of them revolve around disarming the good law abiding citizens of this country.
  • #39
    !
    The poll is proof that you can make statistics say whatever you want.
    Without stating the distribution, number of each in circulation the results are meaningless documentation suitable for analysis of those who attended the College for the Terminally Vague
  • #52
    !
    @UKviewpoint and you are now 100% more likely to die in your own home with out anyway to defend yourself... unless you have a pocket knife......oh wait, you can't have those either.... Sorry UK give me freedom to protect myself any day over what you guys have.
  • R Load more replies

  • #34
    !
    @Hireman so you would sniff your own feet? Interesting concept, however... the only way to KNOW you have TFSD Toxic Foot Sweat Disorder would have been for you to smell them which means you would have died and been unable to respond to my question.

    Are you Sure you don't work for the government?
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    !
    the whole argument is for morons. like watching a dog chasing its tail it becomes evident after a few seconds you're watching a moron.
  • #19
    !
    Perhaps people would simply like to talk this out in the open. Explore all possible scenarios, ask questions of this possible plan or that possible plan...And then perhaps come up with some sort of consensus as to how to tackle this problem---If that makes them "morons"...then I submit that you really don't want to solve this problem in the first place, and simply want to attack anyone who sincerely does.
  • #160
    !
    It has to do with responsible people being denied their freedoms because of irresponsible people who choose to manipulate societies compassion and legistors who choose to manipulate society.
  • #183
    !
    Sonny, UK,
    To any objective observer, the issue was settled over 200 years ago when We The People forbade the government from even so much as infringing upon our inalienable right to bear arms for any, and all, legitimate purposes. Consequently, there is literally no point in "talking this out" - as there is nothing to talk about.
    We aren't seeking to restrict your right to express your (questionable) feelings (though, you in the UK may not even have such rights)- and you expect us to be receptive to "talking" about allowing you to disarm us - reducing us to mere subjects? That is monumentally presumptuous.
    We respect your choice to remain pacifists. I must insist that you reciprocate regarding our choice not to be pacifists. We are NOT your enemy. Neither do we cause you any harm. It's the violent criminals and lunatics you should focus on, NOT the good, peaceable, law-abiding, citizens who pose no threat.
  • #194
    !
    @Sonny this "issue" has been settled for a long time. just because the idiots in Washington decide to ban a product... does not change the reality of life. a mentally ill person who has murder in their heart will kill people with a spoon if necessary. we had assault weapons bans. they did nothing except make weapons more intriguing and more expensive. the last weapons ban lead to a dramatic increase in ownership. when the government banned alcohol it lead to a new form of organized crime and black market industry. the idiots in Washington who are talking about banning guns are living proof of the old adage and interpretation of insanity ; continuing to do the same thing over and over expecting different results.

    ..... or watching a dog chasing its tail.
  • R Load more replies

  • #14
    !
    Guns aren't the problem, politicians are the problem. Ban them and put true representatives into office (yes there's a difference... and if you have to ask..)
  • #21
    !
    Well, I'm sorry but, yes....I have to ask....Because that has been the age old problem with this country...What's one persons "politician" is another persons "true representative"...After all, everyone has a very low opinion of Congress---yet.."but my representative is Great!".......So, Yes..I am asking?!?!?
  • #44
    !
    So you're saying the politicians shot those kids? I've not heard that one before. Or are you saying the politicians are responsible because they did not introduce gun control? I could agree with that.
  • #149
    !
    @Sonny A representative serves all of the people in their district by reflecting their will and desires as a whole, as a community; whereas a politician puts their party and political agendas first. I'd surmise you think your representative is "great" because they have the same mindset and political leanings as you do.
  • #185
    !
    @FFX_VA Well, frankly there are two legitimate schools of thought on the behaviors of our representatives...One, is as you so eloquently put it..."The representative merely votes on issues in a way that precisely reflects the will and desires of his district"...The other school of thought basically says..."The representative has a duty & obligation to lead and do whats in the best interest of his district, even if those actions are contrary to the will and desires of those in his district".....So there you have it....That same old "stand-of". I suspect, therefore, that's what the voting booth is for, come re-election time...Two neighbors can look at their representative---and decide for them selves which "camp" their representative falls in, and whether or not he/she as done a good enough job for the community (usually based upon some personal mental checklist of that particular voter).

    And as for "my representative"...No, he really does not have the same "mindset and political leanings" that I have. But he comes closer than the republican candidate did...
  • R Load more replies

  • #6
    !
    unless somone can magically make all weapons disappear, imposing bans on certain guns will do nothing to stop nutbags in the future. the term "assault" applied to a gun was a political creation started back in the 90's in an effort to implement a gun ban. the original ban had no teeth, anyway; what it did was restrict bayonets, folding stocks, and similar modifications that made a gun "look" like a military-issue weapon. the left, with media reporting, folds everything in this debate under one blanket, which is why the right believes they are looking to remove all guns. most people do not even know that there are at least 6 calibers more powerful than the.223 Bushmaster. why would you not start at the top and work your way down? once again, the nation is reactive instead of proactive.
  • #10
    !
    I agree with everything you say. A ban will only be a feel good action to calm the emotions of those who are fearfulband not versed on firearms. Most importantly, it will be a "Look what i did for you" talking point for re-election. What a sham!
  • #30
    !
    It may not stop all gun-deaths but it would be a step in the right direction. Better that than doing nothing. If people stopped listening to the NRA more would be done.
  • #184
    !
    @UKviewpoint,
    Your failure to offer anything to support your outrageous claims, reveals that you are simply blowing smoke. Moreover, it would be a step in the WRONG direction - revoking the rule-of-law, and reducing the people to mere subjects. You may be fine with that in the UK, but in America we are happy being private citizens - beyond the reach of administrative bureaucrats.

    As for the NRA - I rarely ever listen to them. They are far to willing to compromise and negotiate. Now, please tell me why you feel compelled to advocate for disarming the good, peaceable, law-abiding, American citizens - thereby rendering ALL the innocent absolutely defenseless against the heavily armed homicidal lunatics and criminals?
  • #213
    !
    @bambi33 That is comical bambi. If you read some of the other question replies you would see that I am the only person on this subject who has provided any evidence to support my statements. I will repeat them here for your benefit although since you have not provided any evidence to support your claims you seem to me to be a hypocrit.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countrie...
    US 10.2
    UK 0.25
    Japan 0.07
    The US has 41 times more deaths by firearms than the UK because of their abundance of guns. Stop the criminals getting the guns. Australia did it and the deaths reduced considerably.
    You are not beyond the reach of administrative bureaucrats any more than we are. You have police and laws just like us. Don't kid yourself. And if you didn't you would have been destroyed as a nation years ago.
  • #231
    !
    @UKviewpoint,
    As you well know, the "destruction of America" was wrought by leftist liberals operating as useful idiots for the globalists - NOT by peaceable, law-abiding, citizens. And NO, as private citizens, we are NOT subject to government administrative jurisdiction. And even criminal jurisdiction must operate through a jury. That is the unique characteristic of American private citizens that distinguishes us form mere subjects - such yourself. I expect it is well beyond your capacity to comprehend.
    As for your incessant verbal assault on the good people of America - I am utterly stunned that you could manage to summon the nerve to lecture (regarding the issue of responsible gun ownership) us Americans – who’s grandfathers sent (to you Brits) their own private personal weapons for England’s defense, as well as their sons to fight and die in order to rescue your (imprudently disarmed) country (twice) from annihilation at the hands of leftist, socialist, fascists. You, sir, have elevated the concept of ungraciousness to an unprecedented level – and have earned the (well deserved) scorn of every good American – who has no need to justify his standing as a free, private, armed, citizen to ANYONE – least of all, you.
  • R Load more replies

  • #25
    !
    All laws apply to those who follow the law or do you think we should issue certificates to everyone confirming that they follow the law so they can buy a gun? I'm sure that would work - not.
  • #43
    !
    @UKviewpoint It was more or less a joke about bans. Bans only apply to those following the law. A ban alone does nothing but make people who only rule with emotions feel good. Logically addressing all aspects of the problem will result in more tangible solutions. We have the criminal and their mental profile, Security, and the weapon used. Security is easy, just requires funding, but people do not like the thought of arming our schools. Not sure why. We have no problem protecting our country,money, federal buildings, stadiums, politicians and the famous rich people who can afford armed security guards. Weapons bans for criminals is an oxy moron. Tighten up the loop holes in the guns laws we have. Mental health reform is the hard answer. Accessibilty to affordable mental help. The general public does not understand the problem with mental health issues.
  • #60
    !
    @UKviewpoint not sure if a USA and uk comparison can be accurate beings that uk is lest than 1/4 populated than the US. We could look at our State of Illinois which is very close in land mass and poulation as all of the UK. Illinois has has the strictest bans and weapons laws in the US. The crime rate is so high that citizens of Illinois are practically begging to be allowed to carry concealed arms. Besides, had the US citizens not been armed in the 1700's we would all be under the rule of the Queen, not that that is a bad thing, but none the less we became a free scociety because of guns. Had we not been armed in the 30's and 40's we would all be speaking German today, including you.
  • #68
    !
    @ProCCW The stats are a comparison by head of population so they can compare. I was not saying that your army should not have guns or even your police, just your general populace who do not need them or would not if you had proper gun control in place.
  • R Load more replies

  • #148
    !
    McDonald's, Chick Fil A, Burger King, Jimmy Johns, Pizza Hut... When are these mass murderers going to be put behind bars?
    Heart Disease. Number 1 killer of Americans. Every 1 in 3 deaths is from heart disease.
  • #69
    !
    As much as I hate guns.... It is still neccessary for law abiding citizens to possess these firearms for our protection. Banning these guns only making us even more prone to criminals. I don't see why politicians can't understand... CRIMINALS DON'T HAVE GUNS LEGALLY ANYWAY!!!
  • #32
    !
    The only thing the Connecticut incident has proven is that 'gun-free zones' are a bunch of hogwash. Likewise ANY so-called ban on guns. Those who would obey laws are not the problem, and those who are the problem will not obey laws.
  • #83
    !
    @FollowTheMoney Funny I thought your origins were the UK. Never mind. We are not so different actually. I've met some of you and you seem quite normal except when it comes to guns. Your origins should have nothing to do with it. You are not living in the past. Times change. You are not playing cowboys and indians any more. People are getting killed and not just these school kids.
  • #141
    !
    @UKviewpoint Guns are a fact of life in America. The left can whine about gun control until the cows come home, but it won't change the fact that there are hundreds of millions of guns in America. To confiscate even one would create an issue, so perhaps the solution is to look at what doesn't work (gun-free zones) and implement something different.

    Disarming the law-abiding simply means that the law-abiding cannot defend themselves.

    I believe that a lot of Americans are tired of being told that we can't.
  • #13
    !
    First off, an assault rifle and an assault weapon are two different things.

    An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4] Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

    Assault weapon refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that had been developed from earlier fully-automatic firearms into semi-automatic civilian-legal versions. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 round is fired with each trigger pull.

    http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Ass...

    http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Ass...

    Secondly, failing to have any of the above cited weapons is irrelevant if someone wants to commit mass murder. Or even personal murder. As the no portion of the poll said, you can't ban everything. I'd bet the average homeowners garage has all the makings for a usable cannon.
  • #11
    !
    I hate the massacre at the CT elementary school just as much as anyone else. I do not believe jumping in to ban anything with emotions running so high. Actually, I do not approve of the banning of any guns that are currently legal! I believe that our gun control laws should not change one iota! A massacre with an assault rifle is EXTREMELY rare. Plus if a criminal wants any type of gun, he will get it laws or new legislation in place. Does the U.S. think so much of itself that they believe our own country is the only one that makes weapons like these? A little trip south of the border and you can buy any weapon you want and for way less money. I criminal doesn't care that it is illegal. HELLO, he is a criminal. Then he can sell these restricted guns on the black market. There are also many governments of other countries that are all to happy to deal in legal arms trades. Either for profit or to harm others. An evil man set on a massacre will be able to get the guns he wants no matter how much legislation is passed.
    In an interview with a friend of the shooters mother, he stated that she did keep the guns locked up. I guess someone needs to in invent a new gun case that can be locked and can withstand some one trying to pick the lock and the abuse of someone beating on it until a hinge, screw or lock comes apart!
  • #45
    !
    @UKviewpoint
    Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. The information on that cite is written by people online. Not all or most of the information correct. If you are trying to prove a point to someone, never use Wikipedia as your source. As I stated before, if a person wants to get a certain type of gun, they can. Laws and legislation are not going to stop them. Minus the fact of how small England is, they are not bordered to the south by Mexico. In the US, a person will always be able to get whatever gun they want through the black market. That is a fact and it will not change!
  • #48
    !
    @UKviewpoint
    So do you want your right to bear arms taken from you? I do not, in any way. I would also like for my legally bought gun to be more lethal than the mans gun that breaks into my house with just myself and my 7yr old daughter living here.
  • #49
    !
    @Belin Wikipedia is a collection of facts and those facts are collected from reputable sources as listed at the bottom of the page. I would trust those facts more than most encyclopedias which are generally out-of-date. The UK has many illegal immigrants flooding in from Europe all the time. Your argument does not hold. Your gun laws make it easy for criminals to possess guns.
  • R Load more replies

  • #9
    !
    Oh look, yet another dead horse. Come on everyone, grab a stick and beat the hell out of it before to government bans them too.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #159
    !
    @UKviewpoint

    Well if the was nothing to respond to and nothing to laugh about why did you respondm You must have inferred something from reading it or do you make a habit of responding to comments for no reason other than to be confrontational?
  • #249
    !
    You wanna ban something....ban drinking and driving...criminals will always be able to find a gun to pull off a crime. Getting rid of guns won't fix things. Hanging the criminals that use them will fix things.
  • #247
    !
    Somewhat. Handguns are easily concealable. Some pistols hold as many as twenty rounds, others can hold as many as 30 rounds with a extended magazine.
  • #248
    !
    The banning of extended magazines on handguns holding 30 rounds is a blatant danger to the public and serve no plausible purpose.
  • #198
    !
    When we banned booze we opened the door for organized crime, and didn't stop the consumption of booze. When we banned pot, we opened the door for small time criminals to become "drug lords", and we didn't slow down the usage of pot. When we banned "assault weapons" the first time, there was no effect on crime, and it made many companies and firearms dealers wealthy. Does no one pay attention to past results? Perhaps it is now time for some non-biased study. Let us find some honest people with no political axes to grind, and try to find effective measure to prevent these kind of tragedies.
    We will never stop them all, but we can do a lot better than we have been doing.
  • #188
    !
    Ban crazy people with machine guns! Ban the President! Do something even if its wrong! LOL! Do I sound like a crazy liberal?
  • #162
    !
    Even reducing those deaths would be helpful, IF it would work but that's questionable. IF it would work I say ban them (even Scalia says assault rifles do NOT count under the 2nd amendment), but a public policy analysis is necessary.
    We can't ban handguns with America's gun culture it would be like alcohol prohibition. People would not respect the law and gun deaths would probably go up in connection to increased black market activity.
    What we can do is subsidize the sale and education about tasers. If more people buy tasers for self-defense there will be less gun deaths. Tasers aren't perfect and sometimes though far less often than handguns they do kill, so if anyone has a better non-lethal self-defense weapon to promote let us know, and add to the national discussion.
    Even if we can't ban assault rifles, tax the hell out of them and provide incentives for sportsmen to just rent one for the day at the gun club rather than buying their own.
  • #152
    !
    Banning guns, Only sells more guns before the ban.
    NRA Memberships growing by 8000 a day
    Good job liberals, You are helping to sell guns.
  • #132
    !
    The figures demonstrate that a ban on semi-automatic rifles is an emotional reaction to horrendous incidents, not a logical solution for preventing gun deaths.
  • R Load more comments...
Post