With the recent mass shooting in Maine, have you changed your viewpoint on outlawing assault style weapons?

Question

The Congressman from Maine just threw his support behind banning assault weapons.

douride2 · Accepted Answer

My views haven't changed. I still think there is no reason for a person to have an assault rifle. Same thing goes for those huge clips.

Nikki1989 · Accepted Answer

Only in America would this be even be in question.

Lliam · Answer

Fuck no.

"Military-style assault weapon" is a dishonest term with no definition that was deliberately invented to make people believe that certain semiautomatic rifles that "look" scary are more deadly than other semiautomatic rifles.

"Assault weapon" already had a definition. It is a military weapon with "selective fire" capability, meaning that it can fire on "full automatic" mode. It is a machine gun.

But "military-style assault weapons" are NOT machine guns and cannot be easily converted to full-auto.

Interestingly (and conveniently) "military-style assault weapon" has been abbreviated to "assault weapon" which is a complete misnomer; a deception.

A semiautomatic is a semiautomatic. Period. No semiautomatic has supernatural powers, regardless of furniture such as black, ergonomic stocks made of composite materials.

Those rifles that are branded as "assault weapons" are used in no more than 2.5% of all firearm homicides and virtually zero suicides.
They also happen to be the most popular sporting (hunting) rifles. It is absolutely false that they have no use other than killing "people". That's absurd. Pure propaganda.

Why try to ban guns that are only used in 2.5% of gun homicides? The answer is, nobody would support banning all firearms or even handguns. It was easier to convince people through lies and distortions that "certain" semiautomatic weapons were extra dangerous. And if people would swallow that and support legislation, a legal precedent would be set for banning more and more types of normal, every day firearms.

The Gun Control Lobby's long term agenda has always been to nullify the Second Amendment and disarm American citizens. It's goal is disarmament, NOT saving lives.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." The Bill of Rights is a finite list of such rights; rights that the government is prohibited from infringing upon.
Those rights are not "granted" by the government.

The right to own firearms is essential to preserving life, liberty and happiness. Without it, a person is a "loyal subject" as in England, not a sovereign citizen. A firearm can be used for hunting and providing food, defense against assault, defense against invasion by a foreign enemy, or even rebellion against take over of our own government by a rogue, tyrannical regime.

Who knows what the future might bring? Comfortable people often oppose gun ownership until they, themselves, are threatened. I've seen it over and over. Either they buy a gun of their own or they beg someone with a gun (like police) to protect them.

What if the electrical grid went down for months? No electricity, phone, internet service or means of communication, no fuel, no refrigeration, water shortages, stores closed. If bandits came to your door, what would you do?

nonyabeez-wax · Answer

Banning guns of any type will only cause more of these incidents to happen. We've been banning things more and more since the 80s and it only makes it worse.

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over an expecting a different result.

You want things like this to stop happening, then let's go back to when guns weren't banned in certain places, pre1980s, or before that, pre1920s, and anyone could carry anywhere. More good guys with guns will stop this. Its why 98% of all of these shootings happen in 'gun free zones' where law abiding citizens are defenseless. Its a power trip for the shooter.

"Buh muh, UK, Buh muh Australia" - where the stabbings in the UK are the same amount of shootings per capita in the US, despite them only having 20% of the population, or Australia where the crime rate nation wide is higher per capita than the US nation wide?

You take out the 7 major anti-gun cities

San Francisco, Newyork Chicago, Portland, Las Vegas, Baltimore, And Philadelphia; and you wipe them off the map and the US crime rate drops to the bottem of every list that compares the US to other nations.

The national average police response at code 3(lights sirens, get there now, someone is dying) in the US is 7.5 minutes. If you need the police, they will be 7 minutes late to your murder.

Then you have tyrannical governments.

Every single time a government has oppressed its people, they took guns away from the people first. Its straight from Hitlers hand book; "in order for you to conquer a nation, first you must disarm her people." - straight from his book. Mein Kampf

In both the UK, and Australia, since they've confiscated guns, and are still working to remove all of them, they have been ramping up their restrictions on free speech. In fact, the UK government has jailed people on more than one occasion for Jokes.

You need to remember that a gun is a tool, just like a hammer, of which more people die from hammers every year than rifles. That being said, you're not calling for the banning of hammers now are you? What about feet? Can we ban feet? More people die from being stricken with fist and feet in a year than rifles, let alone the "scary" looking ones that are categorized as "assault style" rifles. Never mind that that they function the same. One trigger squeeze=1 bullet, just like a pistol.

The government uses undefined and arbitrary words in an effort to exploit tragedies that could have been prevented if laws were less restrictive, in order to emotionally blackmail you into a position where they can enslave you.

The second amendment is about only two things. Defense of yourself, and others from people who would actively do you harm, and defense against a tyrannical government.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."
well-regulated in the context of 1776 and 1789:
https://constitution. org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu. htm"It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected."
Definition of Militia:

militia /mə-lĭsh′ə/

nounAn army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. re-state://background_color_rgba (0, 0, 0, 0), font_color_rgb (77, 77, 77), justifyLeft

WhiteSteve · Answer

The mass shooting in Buffalo a couple years ago is what really cemented it for me. I watched the killer’s body cam footage, and the speed and ease with which he was mowing people down blew my mind. I think by my count he had 5 down and dead in as many seconds, just stepping out of his car. I mean, we simply CANNOT be giving random civilians that kind of killing power. I don’t want the cops to even have that kind of killing power, holy fuck, man.

I’ll tell you what really bothered me, though…. I was just watching an interview with the sister of one of the (at least for now) survivors. The kid who got shot also happens to be the son of a man shot to death in a Walmart parking lot a few years ago. I looked into that a bit, and learned that THAT shooter was found not guilty of the murder, on the grounds of self-defense.

I went down a bit of a rabbit hole with that case, and the not guilty verdict really has me fucked up, and I’m questioning what the hell our standards are for “self-defense.”

The Cliff’s Notes of the situation are that the shooter used to work with the victim’s girlfriend, and it sounds like something happened where the girlfriend had been fired and the shooter had some part in it. The victim was a guy in his 40s, the shooter was this scrawny little trailer park lookin’ bitch who was about 21. The shooter drove by them in the lot and called the guy’s girlfriend “slut” as he passed. Naturally, this angered the boyfriend, and he went over to the kid and demanded he apologize to his girlfriend for being disrespectful. This all sounds pretty reasonable so far.

I’m a little fuzzy on the details due to vague reporting, but it sounds like the boyfriend either that day or at an earlier time had punched the shooter, and said “I’m gonna fuckin’ kill you.” Now, let’s take a brief moment to acknowledge the obvious….”I’m gonna fuckin’ kill you” is an EXTREMELY ubiquitous colloquial expression, and anyone being intellectually honest knows that when it’s said, it almost never is intended literally. So we just can’t be making that alone to be a valid reason to open fire on someone in self defense.

And that sounds like it’s pretty much what happened here. The victim was retreating from the car after a purely verbal exchange, and the shooter leaned out and shot him in the back, paralyzing him, and ultimately killing him. The shooter then stood over the victim with his gun, preventing anyone from coming to the victim’s aid.

I mean…. NO. Fucking NO. This absolutely cannot be considered a reasonable standard for gun violence, “a guy bigger than me wanted to fistfight and I didn’t think I’d win, so “I feared for my life” and shot him.” That is so unbelievably pussy, it makes my head feel like it’s going to explode. If you yell “slut” at my lady, you’re fuckin’ right I’m gonna step to you about it, and you better just apologize or knuckle up. The moment you brandish a weapon first, you’re the one who’s wrong, period. You can’t shoot someone because you’re afraid of a black eye.

I don’t know how the hell any jury in their right mind would acquit this kid, but that’s why we call them “Maine-iacs” up my way.

Anyway, bit of a tangent, but I’m just saying not only do we need to limit the kind of weapons people have access to, we need an entire deprogramming and readjustment of what constitutes a situation calling for lethal self-defense, because using a gun to avoid a fistfight with a larger man just can’t be a thing, that’s fucking preposterous.

Peter_Penetrator · Answer

Right now as l type this l happen to have a Savage Steven’s 320 home defense shotgun laying on my bed. I used it earlier to kill a copperhead in my yard. I laid it on my bed just for convenience.
I have owned that gun for a year now. Guess what? Not once has that gun up and left my house, on its own, and walked down to a sports bar or bowling alley and killed anyone. Not once. Nor will it ever. It has no legs.

It will continue to lie motionless on my bed until later when l properly store it. I happen to be one of millions of responsible gun owners in the United States. I am not a criminal and l am definitely mentally fit. However, l do happen to live in a society where too many people do not value human life, who do not have respect for their fellow citizens. A society that treats individuals with such disrespect.

Gun violence is not a gun issue. Gun violence is a societal issue. You can take every gun that any gun owner possesses, legally owned or not, take those guns and throw them all into the world’s oceans and you still have a broken society. A broken individual will still find a way to commit mass murder.

Take serial killers for example. That is someone that kills three or more people. There have been a variety of ways each and every one of them has chosen to kill. They can kill with rope, knives, with their bare hands, extension cords, poisons, ice picks, baseball bats, claw hammers, you name it. If they are hell bent on mass killings, they will find a way.

A person doesn’t need a gun to commit mass murder. A broken person can, just as easily get in their car, drive down the road and just swerve onto a crowded sidewalk, or just place a pressure cooker bomb on a curb during a marathon. They can load up a moving truck with diesel fuel and fertilizer then park it on the street in front of a federal building.

If you want to put an end to gun violence, have empathy for your neighbor, coworker, family members, and classmates. Elected, past and present, officials need to be more responsible with their words and leadership. Folks also need to stop perpetuating racism. Just STOP THE HATE!!! You do that and no one will feel the need to take innocent lives.

scentoflavender · Answer

It's a bias term used by people who don't know a lot abou weapons. I appreciate that they want to help solve a problem, and I feel for victims. But define assault weapon? Does my Ak with rails and metal hand guards fit while my one with wood furniture doesn't?

You have the president telling people 9 mil rounds will shoot the lungs out of someone, so buy a shot gun. You have people who don't know what semi auto is. They hear auto. You say clips, it's a magazine. There are weapons that take clips, such as the m1 garand, or stripper clips, such as an sks.

The point being is if you can't educate yourself on the issue enough to identify what things are and how they function, how can you legislate it?

But all of that is trivial. The 2nd amendment exists for a reason. And it shall not be infringed.

And before someone gets mad and blows this up and messages me, this man was disturbed. If it wasn't a rifle, it would have been a knife. A truck. Something else. We've seen it in other countries. We've seen it here.

RingOfFire · Answer

Exactly what is an "assault style weapon?" Something that looks scary like a Halloween costume? Tens of thousands of more Americans were killed with handguns than with rifles. And the vast majority of them were obtained illegally. Most of the people who were killed lived in areas with the some of the strictest gun laws in the country. So how exactly will adding even more laws prevent murderers and insane people like this guy who don't give AF about the law from murdering people?

I'm so sick of hearing about these attacks on the AR-15 pea shooter. How stupid can it get. Only an idiot would be persuaded by these arguments.

LESS THAN ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE SHOT ARE SHOT BY SO CALLED "ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS."

The real question is why don't these leftist fascists who want to take away our Constitutional rights and install their dictator care about the REAL problem of black people murdering other black people by the thousands and instead focus on these exceedingly rare events where a relative handful of people die?

It's not about helping people, it's about spreading propaganda to the ignorant.

No, I haven't changed my viewpoint. I'm still sick and tired of these fakes, phonies and frauds on the left.

Lynx122 · Answer

I live in Europe and this gun debate in the U. S. just seems insane. I've felt safe my whole life. I never used a gun except when I was in the military and I declined buying the weapon which I could have done because I don't think it's a good idea. Looking from the outside it's just a bubble of insanity an echo chamber and these people look ridiculous.

I've seen people in the youtube comments of the most recent shooting in Florida Ybor blaming the 14 year old child for being out at night. Because they want to deflect attention from the fact that the place was flooded with cops. Gun nuts always insist this is the answer (good guys with guns) but they couldn't prevent 18 people getting shot.

I went out at night when I was 14 that was the first time I experienced night life and I was completely safe. Because I live in a sane and safe country. But in your country the debate isn't even worth it because everybody knows it won't lead anywhere and nothing will change and there's too many people making money and too many braindead idiots who don't understand anything but think they know everything.

236color · Answer

I wish banning assault weapons would work. There are a number of problems with that though. To the right, banning assault weapons would be like overturning Roe v Wade was for the left, VERY motivating and likely to spark immense backlash. Actually defining "assault weapons" is legally difficult. The last time it happened under the Clinton administration, it came down to semi automatic rifle with a bayonet lug. Guess what, new AR 15s don't have bayonet lugs.

What needs to be done away with is the fear that people (mostly white men) have that makes them think that the answer to their problems is to kill a bunch of people. There are some economic changes I think would help, but I'm not sure of that, and they would be politically difficult.

The idea that banning sales of black, scary rifles will stop people from doing bad shit with firearms ignores the fact that we already have more guns than people, and that A 15s are the most popular weapon in the US.

The change that needs to happen is a cultural one. People need to stop think of the gun as the "easy button" in life, and to stop being afraid of EVERY FUCKING THING. I wish I had a surefire way to do that, but I don't. I'm open to suggestions.

rigmarole · Answer

Most of my life I have been of the opinion that people have a right to bear arms under the constitution. If people choose to have a gun that was fine, and if they choose not to have a gun that was also fine. After all we have those rights but do not need to exercise them. But with all these mass shootings, I’ve changed my mind. Now I believe all high school curriculum in America should include a weapons safety and training course. All high school campuses should have a shooting range on site. Students should not be able to graduate high school until they have received a rifle qualification for an AR-15 style rifle or whatever civilian weapon platform is currently preferred by the US military in any given year as technology progresses. It should be mandatory like math and science courses. I’m now more in favor of laws that make it mandatory for every household to have at least one adult that owns, maintains, and regularly trains with an AR-15 style rifle and has some sort of government sponsored civil defense training to defend against communist violence.

cosmosis181 · Answer

How are you gonna do that? Must not be any well traveled people who've lived in a variety of life circumstances here👀... because If I want that an SKS, Israeli flak vest, 120 round drum magazines, any of that... I can just to 1 single website online I won't specify and meet someone at a McDonald's close to me and buy them all, cash transaction. That's not mentioning the states where someone can go to a gun show, such as Arizona, and once again... cash transaction. And that's not including my personal favorite... which brought the feds to my door in Texas a few summers ago. Chemicals and explosives. None of what I purchased was illegal... I looked it up prior to doing so... but it's HIGHLY unusual in the USA-more commonly used in England, South Asia and Mexico. But my service time, in conjunction with some childhood friends backgrounds made them "concerned." The U. S. doesn't have a gun problem, it has a HUMAN BEING PROBLEM. And there are a LOT of us... mostly silently watching... in pure disgust. And it's brewing internally. by the way, the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston learned what they did from an online publication in the Arabian Peninsula. The U. S. is clueless. They need to fix their people, and they wouldn't have to worry. Law enforcement can't do shit, and their justice system is a joke-even Joran VanDer Sloot knows it. He calls our prisons "5 star hotels" compared to where he is in Peru. I believe it.💯

katiesmuff · Answer

The only thing that will accomplish is the millions of legit people with AR's (which is automatic rifle, not assault rifle) will be punished.
What will happen to the millions of those weapons already in the public's hands? Would have to reimburse each owner at about $1000 each to collect them.
The banning of a weapon has never stopped or slowed down these horrible slaughter of innocent people situations anywhere in the world. When a person or persons is this far mentally broken like these people are the only thing that will stop them is finding them and removing them from society.

dynamicyandere · Answer

Assault  style ? As in  shaped  like an assault rifle, right? Mass shooters are going to find ways to get their hands on whatever they can get. Assault- style  rifles illegal? On an AR-15, you just need to remove some attachments, and then it technically becomes categorized as a pistol. SAME gun. Different shape. It’s not the  shape  of the gun that makes it dangerous, it’s the actually capabilities of the gun that can make it dangerous. (In the wrong hands.) Unless you have laws that can prevent criminals from obtaining illegal firearms, the laws aren’t going to affect things very much. Just think: How much have  drug laws  prevented the trafficking and use of illegal drugs? If there’s a will, there’s a way. We need to focus on the mental health crisis. On  prevention . Rather than these bandaid solutions that actually won’t affect anything.

Kaneki05 · Answer

I think by law every American should be given free guns and ammunition they need and see how it goes.
When naturally it becomes a war state and purges it's own land then Europe should come back to claim America for themselves, with established common sense laws like no guns with very rare exceptions and a culture actively discouraging guns.

If Pro-gun people won't change their minds how about we just give them what they want. And let them deal with guilt of what happens. It's every citizen's right to carry after all.

So yeah it has changed my mind before I was saying Americans shouldn't have guns but now I am on their side give everyone guns and see what happens.

front2back · Answer

No, and other than constitutional carry (bad it's surprising nobody in the attacked areas were carrying from what it seems even if it might not have made a difference in the end) Maine already had somewhat strict gun laws.

Really it shows to me the inadequacy of the enforcement of the current system (shooter was committed to a mental institution literally after he threatened to committ a mass shooting) and was released promptly with no confiscating of weapons and adding him to the "Prohibited Persons" list, which is what current Federal law dictated.

It also shows to me that clearly we need to reopen the asylums and push more people into them for longer. We shut down almost all of our mental asylums by 2000, subsequently, mass shootings became an epidemic. Coincidence? I think not.
Maybe instead of funding foreign countries' wars in the Middle East and Europe we could divert those resources to state run asylums being built and run instead.

adidas0169 · Answer

I will make this very easy. why blame something that can't act or move on it own? it's no where near a military grade weapon so it might look the part but it's not the same. so everyone that dresses up like characters from horror movies does it mean those people are going to kill everyone around them no they look the part but not the same. so instead of blaming the object start blaming the system. they knew he had mental issues but did nothing. yea he went to a mental hospital but was still released.90% of these shooting people chose to do nothing to prevent it from happening.

More people are killed from car accidents and other means should we ban everything that kills people? when you start banning 1 thing then you just started a domino effect bc the people don't have a say in anything bc the people that we voted in to represent us in DC feel that they know what's best for us news flash they don't bc all they want is power and money.

AviatorTom · Answer

No, my opinion has not changed. Reasonable gun control laws should be passed, and mental health issues should be better dealt with. There is nothing in the US 2nd Amendment that says anyone can have any type of weapon they want, despite what the NRA says.

bolverk · Answer

No - the weapon makes no difference. We had a similar shooting over in the UK on 2 June 2010, by a taxi driver by the name of Derrick Bird shot dead 12 people and injured 11 more in rural West Cumbria, North England.

The weapons he used were a a 12 gauge double barrel shot gun and a.22 rifle. If he hadn't had access to those he would have used something else, when these nut bunnies go off the deep end they will use anything they can lay their hands on. Having lived in the US if Robert Card had no access to a semi automatic rifle he could have used any number of firearms that were available to him from a.22 pistol, any bolt action rifle, to any shot gun (double barrel, pump action, auto loading), its NOT the weapons that are the problem it is the person using them and in Card's case his background is not a good one, see this ; https://thethaiger.com/world/news/564413/

Kinkyhubby · Answer

Assault style weapon Is a fake name giving to the a rifle. Assault is an action.

2nd I bet if you ask the people in Isreal if they had semi automatic rifles for their homes on Oct 7, they probably would haven't wanted one.

3rd. Why do they go for the guns, and not the fact he had mental issues, threaten to attack a national guard base, went their to look for his ex-girlfriend. Maybe if we had better mental health, this could have been stop. He shouldn't have had this weapon after being in mental institution back in Aug.

exitseven · Answer

No, it is a slippery slope. There are hunting rifles that are semi automatic just like AK-15s. They will ban those next. Then they will bsn all long guns and it is just a short jump to ban everything. I do not trust the government they do not have my best interests. They want to disarm the citizens so they cannot fight back.

sage2021 · Answer

Even if they did away with owning these assault rifles, there are too many out there to collect and destroy. But there isn't any reason to own one unless you're going to go after someone and shoot them down. In that case, crazy people do that! A normal minded person wouldn't unless he was being forced to.

allaboutyou2 · Answer

I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation on how any law will stop those who break laws without thought stop doing anything. If someone has no problem killing 18 people will have no problem breaking any gun laws.
It isn't a logical solution, it would be more effective investing more time and resources into treating and caring for mental health issues.

Likes2drive · Answer

No, my view on this is that they should take people with mental health issues more seriously because there’s always warning signs before people do these things but they don’t do anything about. They even said he was hearing voices about killing people

Meropatrick · Answer

After what happened in Israel i think no. The goverment can't protect its people all the time. unless they assign a police officer for every citizen for protection we cannot accept that. the people must have the right to protect themselves. I prefer to die fighting for myself than being left unarmed waiting for a rescue that would never come.

Mansearching · Answer

Question really is. How do we keep mentally ill from purchasing firearms.

The man could've used handgun or pistol if needed clarity. Would same question arise with assault style firearms?

As I understand it. He bought it in a store, not the streets. He had mental issues then. The clerk wasn't trained or have knowledge to recognize that.

Mental health is the issue not the firearms.

ShadezMcgee · Answer

No, it has not changed my opinion. Doesn't stop any criminals by banning them and all you are doing is fucking over the law abiding citizens that do follow it, Shaun.

anon57897 · Answer

Assault-style weapons are just regular 9mm handguns made to look like assault weapons.

Assault weapons are already banned.

You can ban everything and it won't change anything. There are already over 80,000 federal and state gun laws and regulations since 1990. How has that worked out?

ARC1092 · Answer

No. My opinion has not been changed, at all. If you honestly believe it's at all a good idea to allow any level of government to place any amount of restrictions on, or take away, the right to keep and bare arms, then the entire point of the 2nd amendment is lost on you.

TrueConfection · Answer

Go ahead. In a few years, every man's penis will be considered an assault style weapon too. There won't be an end in sight.

FunkyMonkee · Answer

No! Just the opposite! If more people in that area had them, chances are MUCH better that motherfucker wouldn't have killed anyone (or at least nowhere near as many) and he'd be fucking DEAD now!! Good riddance to bad trash!!

LiamJHayden · Answer

Nope. Just like I won't give up my cars because some drunk driver blows a stop light and kills a family, I won't give up my firearms because some crazy person does what lunatics do.

Lester102 · Answer

Let me say this:with out getting into the 2nd and such each state is different “same topic” different laws in my view trying to discuss with someone from somewhere else in & of itself is a problem, & by the way we haven’t even begun talking, so yes it’s difficult didn’t answer the question though because I know it’s complicated.

Slim57 · Answer

No, that's stupid, killers going to kill with whatever, what we need to do is stop ignoring signs of mental illness, you always hear it mostly with the killers history that most of the time they're mentally ill, and they're ignored. And I think more people just need to carry, the more that do the more deferred someone is, because those killers are cowards and only target places where they think people aren't carrying

andreasderjuengere · Answer

Looking at that picture here - I have a feeling that the lack of tasteful clothing is indeed a reason to shoot people. Otherwise, I think that killing others is silly = my viewpoint remains the same.

MysticDevice · Answer

Nope. If anything it further demonstrates the need to protect yourself even more. No one else can do it for you. Only you.

robocop666 · Answer

There was a black man who went into a white church and attacked everyone a legal gun carrier took him out. The media stay silent on this and people have gotten trouble for posting it online. We need guns to protect ourself from these people.

OlderAndWiser · Answer

Can you please define "assault style" weapons? These discussions always proceed with many people misunderstanding the terms being used.

Static_In_The_Attic · Answer

All the lawmakers always want to ban or outlaw guns however no one ever bans or outlaws bullets.

ItsALongWayToTheTop · Answer

I never heard once where the government has defined assault weapon or assault rifle or high capacity magazine. I think they're trying to keep it as vague possible.

Bricealan · Answer

I'm in agreement, but don't see how it can be controlled or stopped... The nightmare just continues to go on.

LunarEclipse433 · Answer

No one bit. My weapons haven’t killed anyone in over 60 years. They just sit there minding their own business. It’s not the weapon it’s the intent of the person using them.

888theGreat · Answer

They are not assault weapons.

No

You need what you will be going up against

The Problem is not guns but liberals letting everyone out of prison so they can shoot people again.

Build more prisons with life sentence

Dargil · Answer

Nope. We need more, better funded police who will follow up on leads they have. They knew the shooter was nuts.

pickles77 · Answer

Well is it really gonna be better with ww3 around the corner? Better to stay armed. I think the failure was at the mental institution. They should have red flagged him and had his guns confiscated

Massageman · Answer

Nope. If "guns kill people", then "forks make us fat".

BigDog1989 · Answer

Guns don't solve problems, they escalate them. We see it happen with war

Fuentes · Answer

It's not going to stop anyone from having it illegally

OddBeMe · Answer

No one will unless they’re personally affected. We have severe lack of empathy here.

KatherineJ · Answer

No, I haven’t.

gorydetails · Answer

No it doesn't. Gun grabbers can fuck off.

jimmy2 · Answer

Nope it's not the gun it's the person

Sabretooth · Answer

not outlawing but certainly more hoops.

BarryLiverstone · Answer

Nope

Hispanic-Cool-Guy · Answer

Nope..

Pterodon · Answer

Nope

BLP11520 · Answer

No I didn’t 😏

Donttakemywordforit · Answer

Not at all

With the recent mass shooting in Maine, have you changed your viewpoint on outlawing assault style weapons?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Do you support banning thousands of hunting rifles, most of which haven't been near a battlefield or crime scene in the last 100 years?

With the recent mass shooting in Maine, have you changed your viewpoint on outlawing assault style weapons?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Do you support banning thousands of hunting rifles, most of which haven't been near a battlefield or crime scene in the last 100 years?

We're glad to see you liked this post.