Sisti Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 As Chris Rock said, $500 a bullet...there will be no more innocent bystanders lol I have no problem with a stricter process for obtaining a gun and putting a limit on how many bullets one person could buy. Also, I think we're all in agreement we want to end ways for Sandy Hook to happen. I say that, "yes you should keep the second ammendment around to keep the gvt. in check" but "no, we don't need to have the highest amount of guns per capita of any country in the world." Let's stop with the radical talk and just do what needs to be done to bring our gun death rate down without infringing on our rights. To me, this is about as common sense of a solution as anything, TIGHTEN THE LAWS WITHOUT INFRINGING ON OUR CONSTITUTION Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabri1985 Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 As that tool Piers Morgan said your Gov has hundred of Nukes if they really wanted to all thats needed is blast a few places and people will soon get the message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewGuy2000 Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 This has been debated for decades now and it won't change a thing. The only thing I see our government doing is ban assault rifles which were built for warfare purposes. Other than that, it is our right to bear arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFL_FTW Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 As Chris Rock said, $500 a bullet...there will be no more innocent bystanders lol I have no problem with a stricter process for obtaining a gun and putting a limit on how many bullets one person could buy. Also, I think we're all in agreement we want to end ways for Sandy Hook to happen. I say that, "yes you should keep the second ammendment around to keep the gvt. in check" but "no, we don't need to have the highest amount of guns per capita of any country in the world." Let's stop with the radical talk and just do what needs to be done to bring our gun death rate down without infringing on our rights. To me, this is about as common sense of a solution as anything, TIGHTEN THE LAWS WITHOUT INFRINGING ON OUR CONSTITUTION Just a head's up - Chris Rock said $5,000 dollars a bullet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wirerat Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 This has been debated for decades now and it won't change a thing. The only thing I see our government doing is ban assault rifles which were built for warfare purposes. Other than that, it is our right to bear arms. What's funny about that, is less people die per year from RIFLES of all types than die of being beaten with a hammer. Liberals and Politicians are seriously pretty ignorant of FACTS! They just go off emotion, then when it all goes wrong they point their fingers and blame Bush... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juice64011 Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 So Obama wants to ban "assault type weapons", well sorry mr president but the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle that are readily available to the public is basically some of the attachments that you can put on them and how they look. If you ban 30 round magazines then a shooter will just tape 2 10 round magazines together and take less than 2 seconds to switch them. Our military has been doing it for decades. If you really want to change something with guns then you should regulate hand guns not rifles or magazine size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skullbone Posted January 15, 2013 Report Share Posted January 15, 2013 Don't worrry, the Marxist utopians already want to attack our access to ammunition also. It's not a new idea. The federal government has no business meddling with gun regulation at all. Regulation is supposed to be up to the states. " The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinate. The former will be exercised principally on external objects such as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people." -James Madison co-author of the U.S. Constitution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.