| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: << 7 8 9 [10] |
SCL512
LIF Infant
Member since 7/12 78 total posts
Name:
Stephanie
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by ElizaRags35
I think the media is a scapegoat. Civilians should not have weapons that the military uses in wartime.
Civilians cannot purchase military weapons. You can't walk into a sporting goods store and purchase an M16.
|
Posted 1/14/13 9:57 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
maybebaby
LIF Adult
Member since 11/05 6870 total posts
Name:
Maureen
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by SCL512
Posted by ElizaRags35
I think the media is a scapegoat. Civilians should not have weapons that the military uses in wartime.
Civilians cannot purchase military weapons. You can't walk into a sporting goods store and purchase an M16.
I think what the poster meant is that civlians should NOT have the weapons that adam lanza had..whatever the gun was that he used to massacre those children...(not able to research this second)..but it does not seem like the type of weapon anyone needs...EVER
|
| Posted 1/15/13 7:46 AM |
| |
|
Chatham-Chick
*********************
Member since 5/05 10311 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by maybebaby
Posted by SCL512
Posted by ElizaRags35
I think the media is a scapegoat. Civilians should not have weapons that the military uses in wartime.
Civilians cannot purchase military weapons. You can't walk into a sporting goods store and purchase an M16.
I think what the poster meant is that civlians should NOT have the weapons that adam lanza had..whatever the gun was that he used to massacre those children...(not able to research this second)..but it does not seem like the type of weapon anyone needs...EVER
How is Lanza's weapon any more or less dangerous than a rifle or shotgun or a handgun?
What type of weapons do we need or should we be allowed to purchase? Extremely-Sharp.com - Is there any reason for these items? (this is just a quick online store that I found, but there are plenty more out there.)
|
| Posted 1/15/13 10:01 AM |
| |
|
ElizaRags35
My 2 Girls
Member since 2/09 20494 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by maybebaby
Posted by SCL512
Posted by ElizaRags35
I think the media is a scapegoat. Civilians should not have weapons that the military uses in wartime.
Civilians cannot purchase military weapons. You can't walk into a sporting goods store and purchase an M16.
I think what the poster meant is that civlians should NOT have the weapons that adam lanza had..whatever the gun was that he used to massacre those children...(not able to research this second)..but it does not seem like the type of weapon anyone needs...EVER
Exactly
ETA: And from what I've read, the bushmaster that the shooter used is a civilian version of an M16.
Message edited 1/15/2013 10:41:58 AM.
|
| Posted 1/15/13 10:38 AM |
| |
|
ElizaRags35
My 2 Girls
Member since 2/09 20494 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by maybebaby
Posted by SCL512
Posted by ElizaRags35
I think the media is a scapegoat. Civilians should not have weapons that the military uses in wartime.
Civilians cannot purchase military weapons. You can't walk into a sporting goods store and purchase an M16.
I think what the poster meant is that civlians should NOT have the weapons that adam lanza had..whatever the gun was that he used to massacre those children...(not able to research this second)..but it does not seem like the type of weapon anyone needs...EVER
How is Lanza's weapon any more or less dangerous than a rifle or shotgun or a handgun?
What type of weapons do we need or should we be allowed to purchase? Extremely-Sharp.com - Is there any reason for these items? (this is just a quick online store that I found, but there are plenty more out there.)
All are obviously dangerous but the one he used was bigger, faster, held more rounds and enabled him to murder those children and teachers in seconds. I don't know much at all about guns but I believe a shotgun needs to be reloaded after each shot so if he had used one, it would have been much easier to subdue him. I think that's pretty obvious.
And I'm pretty sure you know that a 30 round semi-automatic weapon can do a hell of a lot more damage in seconds than what a few throwing stars can do. I mean, come on now!
This isn't about throwing stars, or knives, or cars, or whatever other weapons there are out there. This is about guns. Guns that can shoot off 30 rounds without a reload. Guns that have been used by mass murderers like in Newtown and Aurora and other places. There is no place for them.
|
| Posted 1/15/13 10:56 AM |
| |
|
ThePinkGoose
In Your Hands
Member since 8/08 4706 total posts
Name:
Nunya
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
I really try desperately to avoid these posts but this is really bothering me. I don't understand why this is such a "black and white" issue when it shouldn't be. I think most people that are against regulation are just misinformed.
I do own quite a few shotguns, rifles, etc.
I am a member of the NRA.
I still support the following (I believe Colette posted this):
1) Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds. (I don't agree with banning all assault weapons but the rest of the statement)
2) Require background checks for ALL gun purchasers.
3) Report the sale of large quantities of ammunition to the ATF.
4) Limit the scope of concealed weapons laws at the state level.
In the opinion of most of my family/friends who are mostly NRA members, they agree with the above. I don't see what the problem is or why there can't be some sort of regulation that satisfies all sides. It's such a shame.
|
| Posted 1/15/13 11:17 AM |
| |
|
ElizaRags35
My 2 Girls
Member since 2/09 20494 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by ThePinkGoose
I really try desperately to avoid these posts but this is really bothering me. I don't understand why this is such a "black and white" issue when it shouldn't be. I think most people that are against regulation are just misinformed.
I do own quite a few shotguns, rifles, etc.
I am a member of the NRA.
I still support the following (I believe Colette posted this):
1) Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds. (I don't agree with banning all assault weapons but the rest of the statement)
2) Require background checks for ALL gun purchasers.
3) Report the sale of large quantities of ammunition to the ATF.
4) Limit the scope of concealed weapons laws at the state level.
In the opinion of most of my family/friends who are mostly NRA members, they agree with the above. I don't see what the problem is or why there can't be some sort of regulation that satisfies all sides. It's such a shame.
|
| Posted 1/15/13 11:23 AM |
| |
|
missliss
LIF Adolescent
Member since 1/10 648 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by ThePinkGoose
I really try desperately to avoid these posts but this is really bothering me. I don't understand why this is such a "black and white" issue when it shouldn't be. I think most people that are against regulation are just misinformed.
I do own quite a few shotguns, rifles, etc.
I am a member of the NRA.
I still support the following (I believe Colette posted this):
1) Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds. (I don't agree with banning all assault weapons but the rest of the statement)
2) Require background checks for ALL gun purchasers.
3) Report the sale of large quantities of ammunition to the ATF.
4) Limit the scope of concealed weapons laws at the state level.
In the opinion of most of my family/friends who are mostly NRA members, they agree with the above. I don't see what the problem is or why there can't be some sort of regulation that satisfies all sides. It's such a shame.
|
| Posted 1/15/13 11:54 AM |
| |
|
| Pages: << 7 8 9 [10] |
