This administration does not call for the confiscation of guns. In effect it would reenact the Brady law and call for more intense background checks including for gun shows.
From what I can see – and I have lived in many countries where people don’t own guns – when people are stripped of their guns, they stop shooting each other. And anyway, no-one wants to strip you of all your guns, just battlefield weapons.
we have restrictions on the first amendment (freedom of speech, no shouting fire in a crowed theater) why not be equally sensible when it comes to the second?
My use of “battlefield weapons” was a trifle imprecise, but any weapon that can shoot dozens (again imprecise as I have never lived in a country that allows civillians to own guns except for hunting) of bullets without reloading is totally unnecessary for personal self defence – except perhaps for a Self Defence Force, which I am guessing is what Obama wanted them for. I meant semi automatic weapons, which, in my opinion (not bias) only belong on a battlefield/war zone, if anywhere.
Like I said, any gun that allows someone to mow down 26 innocent people in such a short time does not belong in someone’s home gun cupboard, whether they are battlefield weapons, assault rifles or whatever other fancy name you give them. It is not what they are called, but what they can do that is the problem.
By the way, since when do people who disagree with you become Commies? I am not a Commie, but I am in favour of keeping assault weapons out of the hands of citizens who, as far as I can see, have no need for them. Can someone tell me, without quoting the Second Amendment Rights, why any individual NEEDS such weapons?
el8 over 11 years ago
If we could only stop shooting each other.
J Short over 11 years ago
Let the commentary begin. Try to play nice everyone.
Justice22 over 11 years ago
This administration does not call for the confiscation of guns. In effect it would reenact the Brady law and call for more intense background checks including for gun shows.
ferritt123 over 11 years ago
No. You should try to harness the energy of a 2 or 3 yr. old.
YokohamaMama over 11 years ago
From what I can see – and I have lived in many countries where people don’t own guns – when people are stripped of their guns, they stop shooting each other. And anyway, no-one wants to strip you of all your guns, just battlefield weapons.
chireef over 11 years ago
we have restrictions on the first amendment (freedom of speech, no shouting fire in a crowed theater) why not be equally sensible when it comes to the second?
Daeder over 11 years ago
If we can’t settle the gun debate, might as well solve the energy crisis.
YokohamaMama over 11 years ago
My use of “battlefield weapons” was a trifle imprecise, but any weapon that can shoot dozens (again imprecise as I have never lived in a country that allows civillians to own guns except for hunting) of bullets without reloading is totally unnecessary for personal self defence – except perhaps for a Self Defence Force, which I am guessing is what Obama wanted them for. I meant semi automatic weapons, which, in my opinion (not bias) only belong on a battlefield/war zone, if anywhere.
Seeker149 Premium Member over 11 years ago
Wow, the comments above make an even stronger case for the scientists in the comic.
YokohamaMama over 11 years ago
Like I said, any gun that allows someone to mow down 26 innocent people in such a short time does not belong in someone’s home gun cupboard, whether they are battlefield weapons, assault rifles or whatever other fancy name you give them. It is not what they are called, but what they can do that is the problem.
YokohamaMama over 11 years ago
By the way, since when do people who disagree with you become Commies? I am not a Commie, but I am in favour of keeping assault weapons out of the hands of citizens who, as far as I can see, have no need for them. Can someone tell me, without quoting the Second Amendment Rights, why any individual NEEDS such weapons?