[–] HeavyBrain 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
While you were writting this sentence a bunch of gangbanges shot eachother in Chicago, but you won't hear about that.
[–] My-Name-is-Mud 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
The Portland situation has already shown this.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago
[–] NakedWarrior 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
When anti-gun people ask you why you need an AR-15, turn the question around on them and ask them why they drive a Mercedes instead of a Honda (or whatever car model fits). It usually shuts them up.
[–] superspathi 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I think I'd say "Because it's good for killing large numbers of people in combat."
[–] HeavyBrain 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
What you are expecting from people who say that banning 30 round "clips" is good on the long run because once the gun nuts shot the 30 rounders only the small 10 rounders will be left.
[–] TigerCatcher 0 points 15 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago
It can shoot down a plane and penetrate police body armor. Sounds like just what our founders intended us to have - the means to defend ourselves from the government if necessary
[–] ShitPostMcGee 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
Speaking of body armor, the founders would probably want the people to have some too, but for some reason it is illegal to bullet-proof one's torso in this day.
Edit: Nevermind I am a dumbass
[–] superspathi 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
There's been at least one attempt to outlaw ballistic armor for civilians, but it failed obviously.
[–] HeavyBrain 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago
I hate the Musket argument, when I explain that Muskets were the bees knees back then and that military and people were just about equaly armed in those times aka way heavier than today I get blank stares and then the reeeing starts.
[–] firedak 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
also that civilians owned cannons....
I mean, you can still own a black powder cannon and not need a tax stamp, but back then when the biggest weapons were cannons, and anyone who wanted to and had the money could own a cannon, it would be like owning a missile today.
[–] IheartSwimming 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
inb4: Muskets are cannons and nobody(but the government) needs that kind of firepower.
[–] ProgNaziGator 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago (edited ago)
Let's take UK, after they get ALL the guns within two decades you are at this point:
http://www.activistpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ban-plastic-knives1.jpg
And
http://www.reoiv.com/images/random/UK_Knife_Laws_Suck.jpg
Then this:
http://knifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/UK-Knives.jpg
Of course their real target is self defense.
Disageee? See it it doesnt stop at guns and knives.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/20/appeal-court-frees-man-burglar-attack
I can't find a link for the old man who got arrested with nail clippers.
[–] CuriosityOnFire 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
ONLY FIST RULES NOW. WOMEN SUBMIT.
ALLAH AKHBAR INFIDEL BITCHES !
[–] American-Patriot 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
This is why you never agree to any anti-gun law. Because all guns are assault weapons.