I need to get some stuff off my chest. (Guns-n-Laws) [View all]

[forgotmylogin]

When 45 goes out of his way to extol an entity or person, they usually turn out they have some major malfunction. Yay, NRA, for your "get".

AR-15s. Gun fans are arguing they are "not assault weapons." This is a semantical argument. My question is "why do you need these"? They're not a hunting rifle, they're not used by the military. True hunters fire one or two shots at a time and intend to kill their target with minimal damage hunting for sport or meat. The AR has a high capacity, high rate of fire, and is designed to mangle multiple targets to decrease survivability. The only "hunting" scenario for its use would seem when facing an advancing wildebeest stampede or an attacking herd of moose or bear. It's not a stealth weapon; it is a civilian war weapon the military won't use.

In a mass-shooter/massacre situation, a standard sidearm would still do damage, but at a much slower fire rate with necessary reloads, and victims have a higher chance of surviving a standard bullet wound than a tumbling round from the AR that rips flesh and maximizes bleeding. The only point of an AR-15 is to cut through hordes of living people, or perhaps dead people in a zombie apocalypse. And it probably gives gun nuts the "cool" factor they want, knowing they're ready when the government invades their compound.

I'm not a gun expert, so usually, the rebuttal I get when expressing this is that since I 'don't know what I'm talking about' I shouldn't have an opinion. I have an opinion whether I, my loved ones and other loved ones are shot. I don't care whether it's an assault weapon or not. Massacres are done at distance and with the intention of killing large groups in spectacular fashion with minimal danger to the shooter (witness: Vegas - the Vegas shooter likely could not have killed and injured so many people from that anonymous distance with a handgun or even a rifle that requires reloading.)

No, cars are not the same thing as guns; cars have a nonlethal purpose. But yes, we can certainly pass laws to register guns exactly as we do cars, which similarly are dangerous in the wrong hands and require training and classes to be licensed to operate. Just because you have a 'right to bear arms' does not mean the government cannot restrict the right to how much firepower a civilian needs to have at one time, and cannot require a registration fee to own. "Driving is not a right but guns are..." yeah, whatever, learn history and learn that technology and advancing culture necessitates modification to laws. There is a Constitutional amendment process because the Founding Fathers likely could foresee exactly this sort of situation.

Keep your handguns and your single-fire rifles and shotguns. Protect your family if you live in the remote area near bears or from a home invader. If you need to fire more than six times, you're doing it wrong.

I am incensed when gun fans interpret the 2nd amendment to mean they should be allowed to own any gun, any number of guns, any military weapon of mass destruction, and that's the first theorem in the geometry of gun-control. "People are allowed to have guns, so there will be school shootings and teachers need to be armed in case." That's not a world we want to live in. They neglect to understand removing guns from both sides balances the equation. Teachers don't need guns if the shooter can't get guns, or at least can't get a gun that optimizes their kill rate.

The NRA needs to shape up and become a society that provides actual safety classes and gun reforms, not a corporation who wants to sell a product. Otherwise, I have no problem passing a specific law banning them from donating to politicians and lobbying on Capitol Hill for their continued disregard of public safety by hindering laws that would keep people safer.