Shared publicly  - 
 
"Make no mistake -- they're coming for our guns. And we freedom-loving gun lovers are totally defenseless! Other than, you know, the guns." -- Stephen Colbert

Full episode: http://on.cc.com/Wvk8F9
152
14
Matthew Fine's profile photoEduardo Rico's profile photoMaximilian Schubert's profile photolizzy cummings's profile photo
143 comments
 
all the bad guys have guns and don't care about gun laws!  I've never seen a gun by itself shoot anyone, they need to ban the senseless video games with all the killing in them, those games desensitize an individual to the act of killing...just my opinion
 
Can't speak for most people, but this is real close to going to far. I've put up with a lot as a citizen, but I'm nearing the end of my rope, don't push it. You're not getting my guns, PERIOD!
 
Or what, you might go on the sort of violent rampage that's got us talking about the possibility of controlling them much more strictly?
 
+Killian Beret and +Rick Raymond - other countries have violent video games, watch our movies, have people with mental problems (but better health care).
Why is it just the US that seems to have this issue? And what part of well-regulated confounds you?
 
Not at all +Gary Royal I'm refusing to conform to these random constitution amendments that are attempting to take away my rights.
 
I've never seen anyone shot to death by a video game, +Killian Beret 

What's with you and your guns, +Rick Raymond. I hope they give you happiness that living, loving six-year-old children who are now dead can't.
 
A bit late to the game, aren't you? Quite a few constitutional rights were decimated or effectively abolished in the years 2001-2008, but you say nothing about them. 
 
I think this whole gun debate is ridiculous. Let states decide on their own gun laws. Why is the federal government getting involved? 
 
Gun control is taking guns away from law abiding citizens, not the criminals. The most well armed communities have the least  amounts of these tragedies. One good guy in the school with a gun can shoot a bad guy with an AK dead. What's so hard to understand.
 
I think it's important to remember that if guns kill people, then it's also a fair statement that spoons make people fat, so to fight obesity (a higher leading cause of death than guns) in America, we really need to ban those spoons.
 
Gun community paranoia is already frenzied, so now is a good time to stop poking at it.  
 
+Rick Raymond your fantasy didn't work in Columbine. Right here where I grew up, just miles from my late grandfather's house, an armed guard at Columbine HS couldn't prevent the killers any more than any of your other delusions.
 
There was at least one armed guard at Columbine who was shot dead by the teenagers who had close to, if not literally, enough firepower to out-gun the local police. 

There is talk about the sane regulation of guns, and of enforcing gun regulations already on the books.  There is no talk of confiscating guns from responsible gun owners.  The paranoia out there is alarming.
 
+Rick Raymond The most well armed communities don't have less crime. The US has a murder rate four times higher than the UK. 
 
+Killian Beret Nonsense, I've been playing video games since I was 5 years old, I don't even own a gun.  We need better mental health screening and care and stricter gun control.
 
+Killian Beret , have you ever seen a scary movie and become more resistant to being frightened? Video games are similar in that regard. They are not real, and do not desensitize people.
 
Exactly! The people that would get the idea to shoot people or act violent towards others from a video game obviously has some mental problems. I think the media should be the one to blame for glorifying these killers. All day they blasted the name "JAMES HOLMES", now it's the "Sandy Hook Shooter". They're just giving them what they want. Then other people who have ideas like they did think, "Hey wouldn't it be great if I was famous and on TV...I can be just like them!"

The media is just blaming video games so they can save their own backs. I don't think stricter gun control will help too much though. If someone wants a gun, they'll find a way to get one. Will it be harder? Yes, but it's still possible. 
 
Gun control laws are designed to make it harder to get guns. Fewer legal guns means fewer illegal guns, +Vinnie Brown!
 
There have been many occasions in the history of the usa when the federal government has had to make federal regulations, because many of the states were able to make the necessary regulations on their own. States with strong regulations don't appreciate getting flooded with guns from loose gun show states.
 
+Dennis Johnson You know, when I was younger I did play a bunch of those games.  I don't really any longer, they were fun though.  I don't think it was really the violence aspect though, more the realistic and immersive factors that made it exciting. 

I'd say there are definitely individuals playing those games that suffer from mental illness.  In that respect, maybe those people should also be restricted from that material, same as items like guns that can cause harm.  I think that is the role of their parents if they are underage, they should be paying attention to their children and be able to reckognize warning signs that their child may not be able to handle the "fantasy" or the "reality". 

That's why I think we need better mental illness care and awareness programs.  Because obviously someone who is doing this or is effected by movies or video games in this nature is not all there for a lack of better term.
 
+Chris Pitchford i would disagree. Gun control laws making it harder to get guns makes the illegal gun market increase. That is why drugs are prevalent. Speaking of the mental health issue. Its already illegal to sell guns to people with mental health issues. It is a question on the form to buy guns. I don't know how in the world the government can enforce everyone getting psychoanalyzed even more without it costing tax payers millions of dollars.
 
+Dennis Johnson, a lot of people don't play video games because of the violence, but rather they play as a competition against their friends. The stories of violent games are generally along the lines of "Here's a weapon. Now save the world." They are more often than not designed to put you in the position of the hero, not an evil murderer.
 
I don't really buy into the tyrannical government argument any more, even if it is in the constitution.  Didn't several countries in 2010 overthrow their "tyrannical" governments in the Arab Spring, and didn't those countries also have extremely strict gun control laws?
 
Even when unstable people play video games or watch violent movies or tv shows, they know what they are watching is entertainment, but when they watch extreme left and right bs and horrors on 24hr national 'news', they percieve that as real life.
 
+Anh Thy Tôn Thất - it's worse than that. It makes rational dialog harder and just entrenches the opposition to doing anything. If your goal is to pick a fight, keep going, but if you would rather get something done ese up and realize there are more sides than just yours in this debate.
 
Doesn't the government appear to already do what it wants? Why would the government take itself over? Lol they don't want your guns.
 
I think we need to move off of rhetoric and move into evidence. Does more gun ownership lead to higher murder rates? Anyone with evidence to back this up?
 
The problem with the armed guards in schools approach is that it spreads scarce law-enforcement resources too thinly, particularly in low population rural areas.  A modest proposal: arm the kids.
 
When I am old and wrinkled, I will be the mean Grandma sitting in my rocking chair on my front porch with my shotgun loaded on my lap. Muhahahahahahahahaha
 
Gun proponents are at all cost avoiding three very basic facts:
- US has the highest (by far) homicide rate in the developed world
- US is the only developed country to have multiple mass shootings year after year
- all other developed countries have stricter gun laws, with a possible exception of Switzerland 
 
+Kevin J. Chen Also, it's a liability issue.  What happens when an armed guard shoots and kills a kid who he thinks has a gun or brought a gun to school to show his friends or something (it's stupid I know, but it happens).  People will be outraged.
 
+Kevin J. Chen, I believe there are some schools in Texas being encouraged to train and arm the teachers in order to prevent school tragedies.
Dave T.
 
+Killian Beret OK. You want to look at media, then look at all media. How about your local nightly news which almost always leads off with someone getting shot and killed. How about Fox news which loves to show guys blowing their heads off after getting chased by the po-po. How about screeching dilweeds like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck who do way more damage than a Bruce Willis movie, because you have a bunch of inbreds who believe their bullshit.
 
Does a special license to drive a tractor trailer or motor cycle really result in less fatalities?
 
+Vlad Ovchinnikov can you site your source? I don't think its fair to say that the U.S has multiple mass shooting every year. Maybe other countries have mass stabbings or bombs. You see my point? I think we need to look at the general murder rate of countries in order for the evidence to be compelling. 
 
+Nick Gover , the Arab Spring was massacre free because cameras were everywhere and there was pressure from the US to play nice. Look at what's happening in Syria - Assad is aligned with Iran, so the US had no influence and there were no western reporters on hand. Look at what happened in Iran when large scale protests broke out. I've tried to find a way around believing this, but an armed populace is important for democracy. 
 
+Anh Thy Tôn Thất , I'm unsure about your point regarding Mississippi. During the Civil Rights era a repressive government did try very hard to intimidate the populace, including murder. I believe the only reasons it didn't escalate into massacre and reprisal was the national press and the federal government.
 
+Nick Gover , you've got a great point. But we're in a time with fewer reporters and consolidated media, so an important watchdog is weaker now. On the other hand, cell phone cameras and internet access gather and distribute more information than ever, so maybe that's an adequate replacement. But a bolt action rifle with twenty rounds of ammunition are still persuasive deterrents.
Dave T.
+
2
3
2
 
+Alfred DeMatteo The founders also owned slaves, kept their women in the home, and used leaches for medical treatment. They were't these clairvoyant super humans. There is no reason for a civilian to own a military style assault weapon. None.

P.S. I own a gun.
 
+Bob Cloninger an armed populace is necessary to the defense of a nation as well as defending the populace its self when the government stops doing what it is meant to do, which is protect and serve the people, and start repressing and killing any who oppose their political views. but i do not think that the populace needs to be armed with bump firing stocks, high capacity magazines, and weapons designed first and foremost for war outside of the situations where they are required to face off against a government who engage in armed conflict with their civilian populace.
 
You do not own any weapons that present any kind of deterrent (or even a moment's hesitation) to our federal government in 2013.

If you believe you do you are believing in a myth.
 
Jon Stewart said it best, "If our government is so bad; why do we let them fight our wars?"

Seems to me that the folks talking about the necessity of guns to keep our government "honest;" really only use that as a talking point.  I don't recall many of the 'rising up' when we learned we went into Iraq under false pretenses.

Apparently our 18, 19, and 20 year olds can be sent off to die, but Heaven forbid if we introduce an extra form to the mix of background checks.  That's 'civil-war'-talk!!  ...but not kids dying.  We're Pro-Kid-Death.
 
Maybe the best argument I've heard for civilian AR 15's is that former service personnel expect their rifles to look that way, and have already trained on them. Personally, I like bolt action rifles and think high capacity magazines get in the way. If it would make people feel better to ban high capacity magazines it wouldn't bother me a bit, although I'd want quid pro quo. 
 
+Casey Attaway the weapon is called social media and political activism. if conflict becomes a necessity then the weapons we can obtain that are not civilian models of military weapons or use high capacity magazines can be used to the same effect or better if you know how to deploy your forces well and know where to strike. to demonstrate my point i give the ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu who with a small poorly equipped army and using less powerful weapons defeated the largest and most powerful kingdom in the warring states period of Chinese history.
 
Bob, you touch on good points.  It isn't just 'guns' that needs to be looked at.  It's our values, morals, what we think is appropriate to view, and what is 'play.' 

But we, as a country, have to stop with this "Patri-idiot-Wanna-Be-Minute-Man" nonsense with talk about 'rising up' against our 'tyrannical' government.  Where are these people living??!?  Somalia?
Ray A
+
1
2
1
 
Sure, ban assault rifles, ...as along as it includes the military and the police.
 
+Jody Garceau
they live in remote areas like the cabins they have in the woods. i can guarantee you the majority of those who say they will rise up against the government are members of the militias.
 
A quick look at gun forums shows that Obama is frequently called a dictator by gun proponents. I sure as hell don't trust people who don't recognize an elected President when they see one to correctly recognize a tyranny. They are more likely to bring tyranny than to prevent one.
 
+Vlad Ovchinnikov ...isn't that the irony of their entire 'argument?'  First off, before Obama even said...anything...they were already painting him as the 'bad guy.'  How they love their boogey man.  Second--it's hysterical that some of the pro-gun crowd are threatening violence over their guns.  Apparently they don't get the idea of WHY we want gun control.
 
Gun control I'm all for. Lots of crazy people out there who shouldn't have access to weapons... period. But to disarm Americans completely IF that's where THIS is headed is absolute madness. I have yet to hear anyone prove where disarming a nation has actually proven to be successful other than for genocide, democide, community violence increase, etc. I do not condone gun use, nor do I care to own any. However, ANY government that places so much focus on this intent with no regard for Constitutional laws needs to be taken seriously. We've seen MSM go to extremes in support of gun control but what about a discussion around these Rx drugs that have been linked to thousands of suicides and other mind-altering state issues? What about the drone strikes that wipe out hundreds on a regular basis? Where are the tears for the countless across the border who've died senselessly due to a failed drug war coupled with Fast and Furious? In the end, a country AND it's people do need to address ALL these issues.
D Sharp
+
3
4
3
 
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
 
+Justin Brown Within days of the Newtown shooting there was a mass stabbing attack of children in China. The big difference is that there were no fatalities. Guns make a huge difference in how much damage is done and how quickly it is done. A few years back some guy went nuts in KC, set his house on fire and started firing on the emergency crews. He had a .50 caliber rifle that fired right through the ambulance and hit an EMT, almost killing her. Does any civilian really need the weapon and ammo that let him do this? No.
 
+Josh Hakes Really? I don't suppose you have any proof of that, do you? Other than an NRA talking point, that is.
 
+Jim Satterfield No one at that school or any other school has the right to defend themselves and that is morally wrong.
D Sharp
+
3
4
3
 
NRA used to be about gun safety and education... Now the NRA is all about gun sales and lobbying.
D Sharp
+
1
2
1
 
Bad guys with guns + Good guys with guns = more airborn projectiles.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
 
+Jim Satterfield It is logical for criminals to commit crimes where their prey cannot defend themselves.
 
+Josh Hakes Prove it. Just prove it. and before you do there was a mass shooting of cops here in Washington state they guy walked into a diner and opened fire on the officers killing all but one of the group of five. the diner was not a gun free zone.
 
+Nat Crichton The burden of proof doesn't rest on me.  Finding one counter example carries no weight.  Forcing people to strip their right to defend themselves increases the probability of being harmed.
 
... Not to mention Fort Hood (or what's the name of that base where people got shot)
 
+Josh Hakes, what a joke, people offer up retorts to your rant and you dismiss it with more nonsense. 
 
+Nick Gover The right to defend yourself is not nonsense.  It is self evident that if my right to defend myself is stripped away I am more likely to be harmed.  That logic applies to all.
 
Gotta love the interwebs. What extremists used to say only within their circle is now open for everyone to see. 
 
+Nick Gover Likewise, prove that by stripping my right to defend myself will protect me more than having the right.
 
+Josh Hakes Incorrect. You made a positive claim, not a negative one. You claimed knowledge that mass murderers specifically chose gun free zones for their rampages because they were gun free zones. Yes, it is reasonable to insist that you provide proof for an unsupported claim.
Ray A
 
I'm not sure what you consider nonsense Nick. If you don't have the right to defend yourself, who will?  Unarmed people are easy targets for both criminals and governments. Do we believe that life will always be as it is now? Do we believe that there will never be a time in the future where corruption could take hold of a once peaceful nation?  Look at history and really think about it. To believe life will be all rosey forever for our children and our children's children is short sighted. The 2nd amendment exists for a reason. We once decided as a people to move away from a government we no longer wanted to be a part of, that was called the American Revolution. What if that were to happen again in 100 years? We can't just think about ourselves today. We must protect our rights and our children's rights for the future.  A small fraction of crazy people is no reason to have a knee jerk reaction to weapons, but rather a re-evaluation of why people do what they do.  And as I have said many times before, we must focus on the people, their education and their health, at all levels. Education and health should be the right of every man, women and child in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. A healthy well educated society has little need to harm one another and can uplift the world.
D Sharp
+
2
3
2
 
To fight violence with violence just creates more violence. Stand up to these crazy gun people. Get shot if you have to, but never sink to their primitive, cowardly level by using violence.
 
+Vlad Ovchinnikov There is nothing extreme about the right to bear arms and defend yourself from criminals.  It's more extreme to take away the rights of the people.
 
Well, I think the interpretation of that right is getting in the way of another right. The right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. To many idiots with guns running around thinking it makes us safer. 
 
+D Sharp If that's your choice then I wish you the best.  I mean that sincerely because I think your form of non-violent protest can be effective too.  However, for me and my family, I choose a different path.
D Sharp
+
5
6
5
 
Myth #1: it is everyones right to have the latest and greatest killing tools... Since when does "a well regulated millitia" apply to every redneck and his dog? ...and what makes you think an AR-15 rifle is going to protect you from drone strikes and biological warfare? This isn't 1791.
Ray A
+
4
5
4
 
No, there's people with health and education problems and if we'd stop funding billions of dollars to invade other countries and invest just a fraction of that money into Health and Education, we'd see less violence in all forms, not just guns.

I've never bought a gun, but I can tell you I'm happy to have the right to, and I'm happy normal people have the right too as well.  To take away EVERYONEs right to arms simply because less than 1% of society is nuts, is more crazy than than the crazy people.
 
+D Sharp I'm in favor of gun control if we're talking about disarming the government.  The sun never sets on the military.  That's too much unchecked power.
Ray A
+
2
3
2
 
I can't agree more Josh.  This isn't just about criminal activity. This is bigger than that. Taking away our right to defend ourselves when at some point in the future things could go terribly wrong with our current system, is just short sighted. Everyone needs to stop and think about the larger picture, the future and look at the past, before over-reacting to the wrong thing.  Fix the people problem, not the instrument used.
 
+Josh Hakes If you disarm the Government then who is going to defend us from the Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Mexican, Maoist, Canadian, Mexican, Chinese, Russian, Mexican, Hindu invaders?
Ray A
+
1
2
1
 
+Bigbot de la Isla      Exactly!  When other people (or countries) have weapons and you don't, it makes you an easy target doesn't it?  Wouldn't the same be true of an unarmed population against criminals or their government?

You can't have it both ways....
 
I understand both sides of the argument. I don't know how accurate this information truly is, but thought it was worth a post. People are resourceful either way. 
 
I'm actually totally fine with gun ownership.  It's all the arguments against gun control that are hilarious. Once the Rambo generation dies off and the Justin Bieber generation takes over, there will be no guns anyway.
 
+Ray Appling there is no world police. There are multiple law enforcement organizations in the US. Contrary to gun lover's claims, unarmed residents of other developing countries are times and times less likely to die as a result of a violent crime than Americans. Google homicide rate by country. Guns did not make us safe. 
Ray A
 
Did you really have to say the Justin Bieber Generation? Wow that just totally blew away your point. Sorry, my son isn't part of the Justin Bieber Generation... He's part of the "think for yourself without corporate brainwashing" generation thank you very much. Just as I am not part of the "Rambo Generation".  I hated Rambo....
D Sharp
+
3
4
3
 
The second amendment to the constitution in the bill of rights says "a well regulated millitia" not "an angry mob of citizens armed to the teeth".
 
+D Sharp then is says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". PEOPLE. The first part is to say the millitia is made up of the people.
 
It's ironic that the folks on Congress that defend gun rights, also defund mental healthcare and education. 
D Sharp
 
+Todd Gill ...Vanity. To think you are a one-man millitia who will stand up and fight for your assumed right to play with deadly weapons is pure vanity. You are exactly the kind of person who should be blacklisted from owning a firearm. You rack discaprine grasshoppah.
Ray A
 
+D Sharp I don't think that's what he's saying. If that were the case, I'd not support what he's saying. Sometimes people with opposing view points automatically assume the worst of the other person.  In order to have a conversation, you have to step back and listen to all sides, even if they don't support your own.  Be chill about it.  He hasn't said anything to make me think he's nut ball ready to kill people. It's extreme and doesn't make your case.
 
+D Sharp nice name calling... I am not a one man army... I need the other 96 to 99% of people out there that aren't active duty military armed otherwise we are under complete control of those that control the military or a foreign military. Jews or Chinese that lived during WWII could tell you better. 
D Sharp
 
+Ray Appling 
Nice try Dr. Freud, "..a nut ball ready to kill people" huh? those are your words, not mine.
..you may be new at this, I however, have heard it all before. I would agree with your sugar coted ideaology if this were a case of apples vs. oranges, but it's not. This is a case of greed, corruption, and violent fantasies driven by fear and fiction.
 
+Josh Hakes +Ray Appling and anyone else who say we who want gun CONTROL want to have all guns BANNED are either not listening to us or not reading what we write. What we want are more effective ways of controlling WHO gets a gun, like if you are a person without a history of violent crimes or are not a felon your right to bear arms is not infringed in the least by the laws me and the people who stand with me on my opinion want passed. You just have to sign some pieces of paper saying you give permission for the shop or government to look at your criminal history (if you have one) and look at complaints filed against you and your services in the military (so they can make sure you are not suffering from some war caused mental illness PTSD, psychosis, etc.) and then all you have to do is wait 3-6 weeks depending on how quickly your application is processed. Asking if you are not a criminal, psychopath, etc. is a reasonable thing to ask if you are trying to buy a weapon that can kill instantly from a distance.
D Sharp
 
+Todd Gill ...I assume you have read the second amendment, so what millitia do you belong to Todd? Are you opposed to being regulated? The words "well regulated millitia" are clearly written in the first line of the second amendment. Seriously, I want to write this down, what millitia are you a menmber of?
 
+D Sharp  I belong to the PEOPLE. You know the group of people that the Bill of Rights was written for. Or is the Bill of Rights just for active duty military?
 
Video games are all around the world yeah blame video games and movies lol but not the actions by the ppl themselves
D Sharp
+
1
2
1
 
+Todd Gill ...dude!!! Here, allow me to help you:
Amendment II
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.

No where does it say an individual has the right to a private arsenal of futuristic assault weapons so he can live out his action hero movie fantasy.
Ray A
 
+D Sharp   ...More exaggeration... Just because someone supports the right to keep and bear arms does not remotely mean they want live out an "action hero movie fantasy".  Seriously, dude, calm down.  Personally, I've never even bought a gun, so back off the assumptions on "who" supports their freedom to arms.
 
Funny how gun proponents pretend that the "militia" part of the 2nd amendment doesn't exist...

Let's face it, 2nd Amendment is so vague it can be interpreted in any number of ways. But even if we stick to the right-wing interpretation of it, it perfectly allows sensible gun control. Take current regime under which fully automatic weapons are sold: federal register, tax, better background check including tendencies toward violence, signed affidavits, fingerprints, photo, whole nine yards. It is fully constitutional, it withstood all sorts of legal scrutiny. Apply it to as many types of weapons as necessary, but at the very minimum to semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines, except handguns with magazines of 8 rounds or less. Make tax progressively higher for affected weapons beyond the first. It is a great deterrent - fully automatic weapons are used in crimes extremely rarely, and (as far as I know) never in mass shootings. 
 
+Vlad Ovchinnikov you mean if you interpret it like the author of it meant or the Supreme court? I voted for Obama, calling this position right-winged is laughable. We have these checks already. Fix the gun show loop hole, fine. All this talk about complete bans is doing nothing but driving up gun sales.
D Sharp
+
1
2
1
 
+Ray Appling Hey, you got the quote right! :D
Congratulations, your're smarter now than you were an hour ago. No need to thank me, the pleasure is mine ;) 
Ray A
 
+D Sharp  LOL You're so incensed that you've dropped all reasonable debate for BS attacks. I guess that makes you Brilliant.  Oh, and no no no, the pleasure is really all mine, ...to watch you lose your ground completely simply due to your attitude... the pleasure is all on this side of the keyboard.
 
+Todd Gill Ok, not right wing. Gun-loving. Is it better?

I'm not going to argue over the original intent. Just repeat that legislation enabling current way of regulating fully automatic weapons is constitutional, and similar laws applying the same principles to other firearms will be constitutional, too, if passed. No constitutional amendments needed.  
D Sharp
+
1
2
1
 
+Ray Appling ok Ray, you win ...you might wanna clean your keyboard off before all that pleasure solidifies (just saying)
 
Yes, we have to allow a mass shooting after mass shooting, because that's all that prevents Nanking Massacre from happening in the US. 
 
+Vlad Ovchinnikov so what prevents massacres like the holocaust or Nanking? Both groups were disarmed before the massacre by their governments. One attacked by their own government the other by an invading country.
Ray A
 
+Vlad Ovchinnikov  No one "allows" mass shootings. Mass shootings happen as a result of a person illegally using a firearm. It's already illegal to kill people. Do you think that making assault rifles illegal too are going to prevent someone from illegally getting one and illegally using it to illegally kill people?

Why did they illegally use a fire arm? What caused their lack of reason, or moment of insanity, to kill another person?  Mental illness, desperation?  *Treat the cause of the problem, not the symptom and you will see a end to violence without creating new laws or removing rights and freedoms.*
 
Having a healthy civil society and an elected government.
 
+Todd Gill do you not fucking listen?! we only want to ban weapons that are made first for military's then modified with a breech and receiver manufactured off the original fully automatic military version and mounted the EXACT SAME WAY to the civilian version so they are easier to manufacture but also easier to convert to fully automatic. They also manufacture .50 caliber rifles in the same way they do for the military and the ammunition are the same as well for the .50 cal rifles for both civilian and military purchasers. .50 caliber rifles are not anti-personnel weapons, they are anti-materiel weapons, meaning they are supposed to take out vehicles. Armored vehicles. A single shot from a Barrett .50 cal will go through the armor and engine block of a military Humvee before proceeding out the other side. I have seen videos of them disabling APC's and hurting tanks, these weapons are capable of blowing a man in half at 1300 yards so why they are legal is beyond my comprehension, because in my interpretation of the law they are destructive devices.
 
My gun's bigger than your gun.
 
+Nat Crichton you only want to ban those, there's is not a defined scope everyone has to stay in. Some want complete ban, some just want to close the gun show loop hole (myself included), other's want to ban assault weapons. A gun is a tool, banning based on it's effectiveness doesn't make sense to me (it's ok if it only kills a few?) and a all out ban in the long term historically leads to very bad things for the unarmed.
 
+Todd Gill tools they may be but their only purpose is to kill, never forget that. guns are one of humanities few tools that have no use beyond destroying lives. Bans have been shown to work historically and currently. Britain has a hand gun ban their murder rate has not skyrocketed like what gun companies said they would if the ban was passed. China has a technical ban on guns, their security forces are better able to respond to the threats posed by attackers and generally the death rate from their mass murders are much less then in the US. Russia has a very controlled gun industry where you can only buy a smooth bore shotgun,gas pistol, or revolver that can only fire rubber bullets and if you handle your weapon safely for five years then you are allowed to buy a rifle or carbine. Both China and Russia lower violent crime rates then the US. Not only is your argument indefensible its factually WRONG. Check the facts come back and then we can talk but until you provide evidence that a ban does cause problems (political, criminal, or otherwise) you are just spouting LIES told to you by people (NRA) PAYED to tell those lies.
 
Nat ~ Have you checked out the problems in Chicago? They ban guns and the only ones with guns are the criminals. While you spout research of communistic countries remember this -- America was founded on democratic freedom. Among which is the right to bear arms. No ~ the average person does not need an assault rifle but I do believe in the right to defend my family. You hear of all the times when guns are used in situations like the theater in Aurora or at Sandy Hook. What you do not hear about are the times when the gunman is stopped cold because someone was carrying (San Antonio same week as Sandy Hook).
 
The argument to ban any type of gun is simply an excuse to limit liberty. A nut job will cause damage, regardless of the medium. Yesterday, a student shot several students with a shotgun. Ban shotguns? A drunk driver plows into a schoolbus and kills kids... ban cars? 

How about we simply try to enforce some level of safety with the things we do have (even if it's an assault rifle), and throw the book at those that choose to act illegally? Start taking away rights, you stand to lose more than you reckon.
 
+Ray Appling Gun proponents use a lot of theories, and stubbornly ignore what people have already achieved elsewhere.

Mass killing is very very very hard to pull off without a right weapon. On the same day 20 children were killed in Connecticut, a man attacked a school in China. Only he had a knife. Everybody survived

Australia had a series of mass shootings. They implemented a gun reform, effectively taking semi-auto rifles out, and had no mass shootings ever since. They also have much lower homicide rate than the US (just like every other developed country).

The theory that without people hoarding guns there will be more deaths is completely unsupported by facts. In the US, areas with higher gun rate ownership have higher homicide rates (I'm looking at you, South). Worldwide, USA has by far the highest murder rate among the developed countries. Every one of us, despite guns, is less safe than an unarmed German or Britt.  
 
Why is it no one can have rocket launchers if it will be used responsibly? 
 
+Kenn Thompson As terrible as a loss of two lives is, a loss of 20 lives is much more terrible. We will never be a 100% safe, it doesn't mean that we should not strive to be safer. Banning semi-automatic weapons with detachable high-capacity magazines achieves that without infringing on your right for self-defense.
 
+Johnny Cole Good point. A tyrannical government is sure to have tanks. Both Stalin and Hitler had them. We need rocket launchers!
 
+Edwin Edmondson a) Only a nationwide ban can be effective. Banning anything in one state or one city is absolutely pointless, as without borders prohibited items are easily brought in and out.

b) there are many factors that define crime rate, and gun laws are not the most important. New York, where gun laws are also very strict, sees crime rates dropping. In fact, it is much safer than, say, any gun-lovin Texas city I checked.
 
You need guns to protect you from a tyrannical government?
Guess what, you already have a tyrannical government and there is no gun in the world that's able to stop it.
 
BTW, think Chicago is bad? 15 murders per 100,000 residents. St.Louis, Missouri: 35 murders per 100,000 residents. No gun ban there. 
 
+Edwin Edmondson I am just pointing out that the NRA and gun rights leaders are a bunch of fucking LIARS. and last i checked Britain had a conservative government in power, the Chinese were not communists but capitalists calling them selves communists in an oligarchic government, and Russia while it has an oppressive government still uses democracy to elect its officials. And DO NOT BLAME VIDEO GAMES OR MOVIES for the violence in this country because South Korea has a huge digital sports industry where violent video games are played in tournaments on national television. Guess how many mass shootings they have had in their entire history? None. Absolutely zero. +Gerard ter Beke Really? 'Cause I thought the insurgents in the Middle East did a pretty damn good job of stopping our military. Lets get this straight okay? We are leaving Iraq and Afghanistan because of the same reasons we left Vietnam, they out maneuvered us, they used the terrain to their advantage and while we might have put in new governments in those nations that does not mean we won the war. We are bugging out just like we did in Vietnam, some unstoppable military we have. The entire military is incompetent did you know they LOST a 100 ton prototype tank of which there were only TWO in existence at the time for TWENTY SEVEN YEARS after they were ordered destroyed. So yes I do believe that IF we have to fight the government we would be able to do so.
 
+Vlad Ovchinnikov Simple enough solution to that problem "Attack where the enemy is weakest and avoid where he is strongest"-Sun Tzu. Just don't attack the tanks.
 
Assault Rifles are a type of machine gun. They have been illegal since 1986. ”Assault Weapon” designates a variety of weapons posessing features of no significance. The .223 is a popular cartridge for hunting small and medium game throughout the world. It is one of the less powerful such cartridges. If you want to talk about gun policy, please at least do some basic research.
 
1) the 2 amendment is just that. An amendment to the original constitution. It provided legal means for militias to form and "protect" themselves. From government? No, from slave uprisings. It has nothing to do with personal protection. Read it for yourselves and stop assuming based on hearsay.

2) anyone that thinks owning a few Automatic weapons will protect them from a tyrannical government is seriously deluded. I'm a former war vet and I can vouch that a handful of people with weapons cannot compare to the full might and power of our military. You'd need more serious fire power. And you'd only be able to get it through the black market anyway. So if y'all were that scared about our government, you'd have to go to shopping the black market anyways. So why make fully automatic weapons legal to begin with?

I believe in gun ownership. There fun to hunt and just plainly shoot with. I don't believe in fully automatic weapons and high capacity clips. Wtf? Do we live effing Sudan? There's just no need for that much firepower. Go to a private range and fire assault weapons to get your fix. What's the point of having them lying around?

People kill people. But we're affording them the means to kill more quicker and more efficiently with our loose gun laws.
 
+Nat Crichton the main reasons the insurgents were able to out maneuver us is because of rules of engagement, as well as fighting them in their home turf. They know those tunnels in and out. We didn't and still don't. Also few people understand the political complexity that fighting an international war brings on. Things would be a whole lot different here.
 
+john mendez yes things would be completely different here. I have looked at the history of the area and can say that even after quite extensive research, that i still know next to nothing. The political climate there is so different and well foreign to us and it always has been even back with the Romans and classical Greeks.
 
I don't know if anyone has noticed or not but the people that commit these tragedy's are crazy. I'm not saying like there a little off or something, there full blown super duper mega crazy. My point is that someone should have caught these nut jobs before any of this happened. Their not usually quiet about their intentions or their level on crazy. I'm a gun enthusiast and I'm all for stricter background checks but you can't out and out ban a particular gun strictly out of it's potential misuse. Stop the crazies from getting them.
 
+Garrett Gipson i agree with half your statement the majority are full blown Hitler level crazy but there are some who are perfectly sane people, as evidence i cite the North Hollywood Shootout, where two guys with custom modded AK-47's (they used a bench drill to drill a hole for the autosear pin) so yes there are crazies but there are also sane people willing to use these weapons for evil.
 
+Nat Crichton, did you consider that for those sane people to modify the weapon illegally, is the same line of thought as obtaining the gun illegally?  That is, even if the gun were illegal at the time, those people would still have found a way to obtain it.
 
+Jordan Lunda  so you are using the fact that if they still managed to get them and still managed to mod them thus having them anyway as an excuse to make the guns legal? are you out of your mind?! that is the absolute dumbest excuse to have a gun i have ever heard.
 
+Nat Crichton  No.  I am not commenting on whether or not it is difficult or not to disobey the law.  I am saying that, despite the difficulty, criminals will still disobey the law and manage to get guns.

To disallow all to have guns in the hopes that criminals will not get them simply disarms the innocent.

Also, considering the second amendment, all people should be allowed to have all types of guns in the event of an absolution of the government.  To take away assault rifles would severely limit any chances of success for a rebellion against a government's overreach of authority.
 
+Jordan Lunda so what? that doesnt mean we should make it any easier for them to obtain guns. and quit using that bullshit argument of rebellion or the second amendment. why do you want your guns, what is it that requires you to want zero controls on the sales of them? give me a reason NOW other then what you have already said because we all know what you have already said are just a bunch of excuses.
 
Smart guns are a good product, pity wayne LA PU hates them so. The second gives us the right to buy weapons. We also have the right to become a member of a local militia read The Federalist papers #29 it will show what a bona fide militia consists of. It [-the 2nd] gives us "THE RIGHT" to buy arms, not the right to buy anything we can afford like chainguns, 30mm auto cannon, drones. Weapons should be divided into three categories; Military [everything they want], Law Enforcement [some specialized equipment], Citizens [shot guns, rifles, some hand guns] 
 
+Loren Lippitt Exactly. Right to bear arms within reason as I like to call it. Too bad not many people are talking about it like that. It's the "loud and proud" sides that are screaming the the most and loudest and drowning out all of the sane and reasonable people.
Also " Law Enforcement [some specialized equipment]." I would like to stress SOME. A freaking IED resistant six-wheeled APC designed for the heavy combat zones of Afghanistan is way over the top for a police organization.
Add a comment...