Anonymous Responds To Obama's 2013 Gun Policy

interesting vid~ i liked it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think high capacity magazine or ARs benefit the American people either. But I think the GOP holding a gun to America's head (forgive the pun) over the debt ceiling again can be more catastrophic to the society as a whole than failure to reign in some of the more radical weaponry in the short run.

whats considered radical weaponry?

Semi automatic weaponry that can be legally modified to simulate burst or auto fire.

so thats like every gun then

Episodes of The Kardashians.

Modify the law to prohibit the manufacture and sales of bump stocks is a start. Other modifications are legally prohibited.

I would say weapons of war. Hand grenades, RPGS, assault rifles, sub and regular machine guns. To me none of these guns have a purpose but the killing of another man. I'm fine with hunting rifles, hand guns, shotguns etc.

what about the people who are skilled enough to fire stupdily fast

No it's not. That in fact is a smokescreen. The debt ceiling has to do with paying the obligations we've already incurred.

Sure, but if we can't fix it this time, why not next time? I don't know, I'm just tired of it all.

This is way further than I ever expected them to go.. Basicly give a direct threat to the president? I'm expecting a manhunt now.

Wow almost President Obama's exact words. I find it hard to believe that the President gives a rat's *** about guns when in the midst of this national discussion he would so loosely accuse Republican's of holding a gun to the head of Americans. The man who spoke at the memorial in Tuscon uses such violent language to demonize political opponents over what? Something that he himself has said:



And its such a shame too. He has potential to be one of the greatest President's in history if he would square with the American people and lead on this.

I don't see it as radical or as detrimental to americans. I believe the FBI released a report that it took at least 6 shots on average to stop an attacker (Also look at the recent self defense shooting in georgia.. guy breaks into a womans house, she is home alone with 2 kids.. She shoots him in the face 6 times and what does the attacker do.. he gets up and tries to drive away lol). So say you have multiple attackers and only 10 shots (if they are generous enough to have 10 shots legal).

Going to bring up a scenerio:
So say it's me, my wife, and my 10 year old daughter living in our own house. 4 Men decide to break in, and the police are 20 minutes away (which is the average response time.)

I am going to want the best odds for my well being and my family's well being. Do I want to stake my life on 10 rounds and hope they run away? Hell no.

If I fail it won't end well for my wife and my daughter because there are some sick *** out there. The threat is upon me in mere seconds while the police are minutes away once again. In 20 minutes a person could die, have his family taken advantage of/killed by thugs, and some high value possessions stolen to add insult to injury. It has happened to people before and happens every day. Like I said there are some *** up people out there. Not all of them will run when shots are fired. Most will but not all, and I'm not going to gamble on that.

Would you rather have a 30 round magazine in my AR with Hollow Point ammo or a 10 round magazine in that situation? Now reloading does not take long at all but take into account it could be 3AM, You or I could be in boxers or a birthday suit in this scenario. Where would you keep the extra mags?

I myself want the best odds for myself and the people I care about, I am not a gambling man and don't plan on gambling with my life and others in that situation. If the best options are available for me I will take them. What would you do or choose personally?

Also back in the Rodney King riots, law abiding citizens used AR15's with standard capacity magazines (30 rounds.) to keep back mobs of people looking to do horrible things to them and what they worked so hard for in this country. The police were too scared to respond..



Also..
Decent Article, consider what you will.
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/29/why-good-people-need-semiautomatic-firearms-and-high-capacity-magazines-part-i/

You do realize you can bump fire with a belt loop right? Are we going to ban belt loops now?

Not the water intoxication argument again.

omg~ ban everything!

but i was hinting at this guy

If so called "assault weapons" are taken away, you can count on them trying to ban duck guns, and hunting rifles.

Also you are fine with handguns? You realize handguns count for a vast majority of murders with fire-arms? It's the gang bangers weapon of choice and over 500 of the fire-arm deaths in Chicago have been done with handguns as an example. Not AR15/AKs as people would want you to believe.

Hands/Feet/knives technically kill more people than "assault rifles".

Volk wasn't he on Stan lee's super humans?

yes he was.

edit: i think o-o.

Whoa whoa slow your roll there. You assumes a lot from my post stating what I describe radical weapons to be. Pistols may kill more but they have a dual purpose of keeping hog hunters safe if their main gun jams. I didn't say any gun should or shouldn't be banned I just think any gun with the sole purpose of killing another human is radical. Relax lol.

well ~ Arana~
imo every gun can kill.


***we should just go back to swords and shields. At least we can see the damn blade on most people.

I'll say it again.
Yes any gun can kill as could pretty much anything though really what is the point of having something just for killing. Seems like a waste of space to me. I prefer something that I can kill and hunt with :D

It wouldn't last long, they would want to ban Assault Swords which is like 99% of all blades made.

Now they will let you keep an over sized butter knife for buttering and sporting purposes.

Gun band

thats like me saying...
Yo i'ma go to ***'s sporting goods and buy a hunting rifle to go hunting. But you know...I can take this "hunting" rifle and hunt down some people.

It doesn't matter if the gun was sold as intended for sport or hunting. The point is that it doesn't matter what it was sold for, the thing still kills if its intended by the person pulling the trigger.

lol totally reminded me of the 1996 version of romeo and juliet starring leonardo dicaprio

and father capulet is all like

"Fetch me my long sword"

If you're in a room of a hundred people which would kill them all faster a bolt action rifle or a machine gun? The machine gun obviously because it's sole purpose is the killing of humans en masse. The second of the two seems radical to me. Not to say it should be banned because in the end it's up to the owner to decided what to shoot but yes more radical. It's all I've said and all I see on the matter. You lot have a taste for assumptions.

When did I ever say a hunting rifle couldn't kill? >_>

I'm quite sure that this doesn't help you convince me that ARs are necessary.

Well. how about this then.

Whats going to kill more. a Machine gun from a clock tower or a bolt action rifle with a scope.