magley64

Okay, what does that mean? Everyone needs a government mandated mental health screening before they can buy a gun? before they can vote? Before they turn 21? every 2 years? every 5 years? What rights are dependent upon the results of those screenings? Is this paid for by tax payers? Is this a requirement to live in this country? lots of questions and details.

Illegal search and seizure, I might agree that could make us safer in theory, not that I would support such a change...(as if it weren't already occurring under the patriot act) jury trials and unusual punishments, not so much. Again, was written in the 1700s when everyone had access to the same weapons... Please tell me where I can get a SR-71 blackbird (even if I had the money) or purchase a cruise missile...hey I got a huge tax return, and christmas bonus. Where do i go to order an aircraft carrier?The scale is already absurdly skewed, if the evil government attacked the citizens, assault weapons won't save us.

No, what I am suggesting (if I'm suggesting anything) is that if we are so afraid that the government is going to try to enslave us, why don't we take action to de-fund their military, or remove their power over the military? Make our OWN miltary... OR we can just accept that the US government has the best interests of the american people at heart (for the most part) and leave the assault weapons to the soldiers we depend upon to defend our freedom already. the 2nd amendment was written in the 1700's when the muzzle loaded musket was the epitome of military precision and a blunderbuss the "heavy hitter". Cannons were the "tanks" and were slow, heavy nearly impossible to move any great distance at a decent speed, and provided no cover to the people using it. They hadn't imagined tanks, jets, cruise missiles... so yes, the 2nd amendment might very well have been concieved to try to keep the military on level playing field with the citizenry, but it doesn't anymore, not even close. With the advent of technology, First rate military grade weapons are well out of the scope of practicality for 99% of the population.

so you honestly believe the weapons you have access to would be effective against the number 1 military in the entire world... SERIOUSLY? again... would've held water in 1859, but welcome to 2012... unless you've spent 700 billion dollars every year for the past 2 decades building an anti-government military arsenal, I'm afraid you're severely, totally, and laughably out-gunned.

I think they thrive on attention, giving them more attention seems like a bad idea...

okay, if a AWB won't help, what will?

seriously? with the name calling? I mean, if you disagree with me, fine. If you have an opinion that is different, great. But why the name calling? I didn't call you a retarded dickwad or anything...

if I had my druthers, it would be military only. With the exception for single shot hunting rifles. Now I wouldn't propose that as a form of policy. It is just my personal view. Like sport sedans. I wouldn't ever propose that you couldn't buy one, I just don't see a purpose in making a boring ass grandpa car with a fun drivetrain.

so....???? what? what does this mean? Why do we care who belongs to the WBC congregation?

It seems we have 2 directions to go if we want anything to change... you seem opposed to making these types of weapons less prevalent, so the alternative is making them more prevalent.

Why not?

so suddenly the evil dictator has a conscience... we can kill and enslave these people and they will go along with it, but we can't kill a bunch of them at once...then they will never go along with it.

you think it better to arm everyone and have them kill each other over insignificant issues? I mean if your position is that a better armed public is always the answer, why don't we just hand out armed guns to everyone? a 3 yr old can be taught how to shoot.. right?

why would a country attack it's own people with assault weapons? obviously they aren't out to win the hearts and minds of it's own people that way... so why not just fire off a few nukes and get the job done quicker?

*who's also "Can you handle the truth?"

that is EXACTLY right...

please tell hiroshima and nagasaki that...

not morgan freeman http://movies.yahoo.com/news/morgan-freeman-denies-making-statement-school-shooting-013627371.html

didn't say he was... if i had i'd have said "I fear a world where racists can't be bothered to do a 10 second google search before pasting garbage on the internet." #Reading comprehension I mean cmon, he even cited the very site that one might check to verify the veracity of this post, yet he didn't even bother typing the 3 words "Fear Most Snopes" into google's search bar.

that's because the united states is only targeting specific individuals, and specific groups... if they were actually at war with the entire population of citizens, they would just bomb the whole fuggin country, and be done with it... not the same

I fear a world where people can't even be bothered to do a 10 second google search before pasting racist garbage on a public forum.

First mistake, simplifying the world into 3 groups... but since that's already the framework you're using... Foreign invaders: Have tanks and armored cars, things that make your assault weapons a moot point. Same goes for government. Please tell me how effective your assault weapons are against a stealth bomber ...or a jet armed with missiles... or, sky fairy forbid, an atomic weapon. Until you've got THOSE kinds of resources, machine guns don't mean a fuggin thing to those types of threats. Maybe they would've back in 1859 or something, but now the only people vulnerable to assault weapons are the citizens.

Real classy;)

now hold on a fcking minute, this isn't the place for a gun debate unless you're pro gun? how does that make any sense?

BMW was doing something similar, dubbing fake engine noise from a v10 into the cabin via the stereo...