Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
I think it's silly to claim that we somehow couldn't protect ourselves from the government if assault rifles were banned. My great uncle was in the IRA, and I can personally attest to the efficaciousness of pipe bombs in such situations. Just saying! Besides, I'd love to see anyone try to take on our government's tanks, drones, etc. with a puny assault weapon. It's a ridiculous fantasy to think that machine guns will somehow protect us from government tyranny.
I'm all for having guns to hunt, but no one needs an AK-47 to bring down a deer. I grew up with guns around, but they were rifles and shotguns that held under 10 rounds, not assault rifles. I don't want to be lumped in with the people screaming about how they NEED their automatic weapons. And frankly, I oppose the NRA. The insensitivity of their campaigns of late, and their refusal to address gun violence in any meaningful way has made it clear that they do not represent gun owners, they represent the gun industry. The gun industry doesn't care about little kids dying, or our communities being made unsafe. They care about money and that's it. They are not a reasonable organization. They are the gun equivalent of PETA.
Finally, NO ONE is proposing we ban all guns. Anyone suggesting otherwise is being intellectually dishonest. I am tired of the hyperbole in this regard. There is a difference between a weapon that can fire 20+ rounds without reloading and one that cannot. It's not that hard to see why banning the incredibly lethal ones could help prevent mass casualties. The time to take out a shooter is during a reload, as anyone on a SWAT team can tell you.
Last edited by babystarz; 01-26-2013 at 05:07 PM.