Originally Posted by Lehsyrus
The entire reason Japan did not attack mainland USA during WWII is, and I quote: "Behind every blade of grass, there is a gun". We are feared by enemies who want to invade us as we have many guns out there.
If they attempt to restrict the weaponry a citizen can have any further, the Utah Sheriffs association even said themselves they will go to war with the federal government. The federal government will then rely on the armed forces, however the common citizen with a gun outnumbers the armed forces 20:1. Even if only a quarter of that actually fights, that's a 4:1 ratio. Then we have to take into consideration how many armed forces would actually fight their own fellow Americans, that drops the number dramatically.
The fact of the matter remains, our second amendment rights were specifically given to us to prevent federal tyranny and to allow the people to properly defend themselves against said tyranny at any time. "The right to bare arms", gives us the right to own guns. Now, the federal government is doing everything in its power to limit this, especially by limiting WHAT guns we can have. I think that is bullshit. People, yes, should have to go through a RIGOROUS screening to own a firearm, but should NOT be limited as to what they can use gun-wise. If the feds can use it, we can use it. That's how it's meant to be, that's how it should be. A proper screening will weed out those who abuse the system.
Now, let's look at all of the gun crimes committed. About 96% of them were committed with a legally registered weapon, just as the anti-gun fags say. However, 91% of those crimes were committed by people who the guns were not registered to, proving that these weapons were STILL STOLEN in all technicality. ALSO, there were over 2,000 public shootings in 2012 alone. Almost EVERY ONE of those shootings were stopped by CIVILIANS with their own guns, not the police. Just because the media only shows three shootings that were terrible (all three in areas where people aren't allowed to have guns) does not mean guns are the issue.
If they attempt to restrict the weaponry a citizen can have any further, the Utah Sheriffs association even said themselves they will go to war with the federal government. The federal government will then rely on the armed forces, however the common citizen with a gun outnumbers the armed forces 20:1. Even if only a quarter of that actually fights, that's a 4:1 ratio. Then we have to take into consideration how many armed forces would actually fight their own fellow Americans, that drops the number dramatically.
The fact of the matter remains, our second amendment rights were specifically given to us to prevent federal tyranny and to allow the people to properly defend themselves against said tyranny at any time. "The right to bare arms", gives us the right to own guns. Now, the federal government is doing everything in its power to limit this, especially by limiting WHAT guns we can have. I think that is bullshit. People, yes, should have to go through a RIGOROUS screening to own a firearm, but should NOT be limited as to what they can use gun-wise. If the feds can use it, we can use it. That's how it's meant to be, that's how it should be. A proper screening will weed out those who abuse the system.
Now, let's look at all of the gun crimes committed. About 96% of them were committed with a legally registered weapon, just as the anti-gun fags say. However, 91% of those crimes were committed by people who the guns were not registered to, proving that these weapons were STILL STOLEN in all technicality. ALSO, there were over 2,000 public shootings in 2012 alone. Almost EVERY ONE of those shootings were stopped by CIVILIANS with their own guns, not the police. Just because the media only shows three shootings that were terrible (all three in areas where people aren't allowed to have guns) does not mean guns are the issue.
range for the very first time. What those opposed to guns neglect to realize, is these bans and limitations on guns will
not solve a single problem. Here in Colorado, we just passed a law stating that magazines in excess of 15 rounds are
to be deemed illegal, and are not to be sold within the state. What possible problem could this solve? They blindly say
that "the reload time can save lives". They seem to not even know how quick someone can reload a weapon, for me
as I have fired 10's of thousands of rounds, is under 1 second for a rifle. With a handgun reload being even a smaller
increment of time. Most of these anti-gun types also have absolutely no working knowledge of how firearms work. I
have seen countless times them using the term "clip, or even "magazine clip". The last commonly used firearm to use
an actual clip was the M1 Garand, the proper term is magazine. A politician here, during a meeting, seemed to think
that magazines can only be used once. She went to say that "We want to ban these High-Capacity magazines, so that,
once a maniac uses it, it can't be used again." She has the warped thought that magazines are spent after use, and is
ignorant to the fact that they are indeed reloaded. Secondly, do we really believe criminals will even adhere to these
laws? I remember seeing a report in the Sandy Hook shooting that the shooter broke over 200 laws, including a dozen
murders. Will a simple law banning Hi-Cap mags really prevent these massacres from occurring? The idea that it will is
simply an ignorant statement. The only outcome I see from this, is the restriction of a Constitutional right of the
citizens of this country. It is truly sad.
