Unhinged Tactical Response CEO threatens to ‘start killing people’ over Obama’s gun control

[DeNiro]

Who's to say somebody who's not quite so nice as Obama won't be president 20, 30, 40 years down the road when the citizens are disarmed according to plan?

What if you happened to have a gun and shot an intruder in your home who was attacking you or your family, and owed you or your life to it? Should you go to jail for it? Should you be a sacrificial lamb for the "greater good of society" of having a disarmed populace and fewer people getting killed overall?

[DeNiro]

Even if assault rifles get banned (again), there will be no stop to mass shootings, they will still be just as prevalent. During the federal assault weapons ban, there were plenty of school shootings, including the ever famous Columbine / Westside Middle School shootings in which assault weapons were used:

[Mr. Ambien]

But why do you NEED them? That's one thing that no gun owners can ever intelligently answer.

And don't say cause they're fun. Cause that's not a good enough reason for regular citizens to be armed with military style weapons.

Of course it won't eliminate mass shootings. But it can at least deter people from killing larger amounts of people. If not being able to own an assault weapon means even just one extra kid doesn't get killed, then it's worth it. Gun owners need to stop being so damn selfish, you don't need assault weapons, period.

[Bertuzzi Babe]

You're not looking for an intelligent answer, or any answer that doesn't fit what you believe about assault weapons and the right to bear arms, please stop pretending to be.

[DeNiro]

It's pointless to answer a question that:

1) Has been answered for the umpteenth time, and:

2) You've already answered anyways.

You're not looking for an intelligent answer, or any answer that doesn't fit what you believe about assault weapons and the right to bear arms, please stop pretending to be.

[Mr. Ambien]

So basically you don't have an intelligent answer?

Pretty much what I thought.

[Electro Rock]

That has absolutely nothing to do with assault weapons.

If someone breaks into your house, you're not going and grabbing an assault rifle. You're going and grabbing your hand gun.

That's what pro gun people seem to get so paranoid about. This is not a gun ban, this a ban on certain types of unecessary weapons.

[Bertuzzi Babe]

Wow, disagree with someone's point of view and you're 'pretending' or just outright making stuff up.......good to know... I must extend my thanks for someone clarifying this for the majority of users here and in other threads. No delusions of grandeur and arrogance were intended of course, just a schooling of CDCers who don't know any better?

It's a shame that those on the pro-automatic firearms side don't seem to understand that there is a middle ground in this debate.

[DeNiro]

You already had "thoughts" which had nothing to do with getting answers. Again, please stop pretending.

[Mr. Ambien]

Well why can't people who are pro guns stop with circular logic and trying to create distractions in the debate, and just give a real answer?

You're the ones who have to defend your right to bear these kinds of weapons, lets hear your argument. If you can't even make one, then I question your actual need for these weapons.

[DeNiro]

You'd grab what's most effective, and all else being equal, rifles and shotguns are much more effective than shotguns in most people's hands.

[inane]

He has answered already. It's fear and the constitution. End of story. All the semantics in the world won't get you anywhere.

[DeNiro]

They've been defended already. Search the forums for Suzanna Hupp. Some of us don't feel like answering the same question 500 times for each new poster to a discussion that feels the need to ask it and pretend they want answers.

[Tortorella's Rant]

What is this nonsense about needing assault weapons to protect yourself from an oppressive government? Paranoia much? When the amendment was written, it made a helluva lot more sense at the time when warfare consisted of muskets and cannons. But tell me more about how your ability to inadequately fire your assault rifle is going to protect you against the U.S. military.

[Tearloch7]

Wow, disagree with someone's point of view and you're 'pretending' or just outright making stuff up.......good to know... I must extend my thanks for someone clarifying this for the majority of users here and in other threads. No delusions of grandeur and arrogance were intended of course, just a schooling of CDCers who don't know any better?

It's a shame that those on the pro-automatic firearms side don't seem to understand that there is a middle ground in this debate.

[Mr. Ambien]

Well I`ve seen all the canned answers where people continuously cite the 2nd ammendment. That really isn`t an intelligent argument to me. That document was written hundreds of years ago and has no real basis today. There has to be a limit on arms, otherwise people could walk down the street with RPG`s tucked in their coats.

And don`t tell me the government has no right to tell you what to do. Because the government tells you what to do every day of your life. That`s what laws are.

I was just hoping to get a unique perspective from someone who clearly has a passion for guns. But I guess I`m not gonna get it. Too bad, cause you're gonna need a better argument than the second ammendment if you wanna keep your assault rifles.

[DeNiro]

What is this nonsense about needing assault weapons to protect yourself from an oppressive government? Paranoia much? When the amendment was written, it made a helluva lot more sense at the time when warfare consisted of muskets and cannons. But tell me more about how your ability to inadequately fire your assault rifle is going to protect you against the U.S. military.

[etsen3]

Instead of hiding in the woods and stockpiling guns, why not speak out peacefully against some of the actions of the US government against it's own citizens. Americans' rights are slowly being stripped away, and it's a shame there's no Occupy style movement to bring mass attention to it.

[inane]

I have a passion for guns? Do you know how many I own? You, like many others, have confused a non gun owner for being a gun nut. That's pretty hilarious.

And about "thats what laws are", the second amendment is law. It's amongst one of the top and most important laws of the land by being in the Constitution. I guess it isn't important though when it doesn't agree with you.

Another reason I don't bother re-answering the question for you, on top of you pretending you want answers, is that it's impossible to take seriously people who use hyperbole and talk about rocket launchers virtually no one actually has or uses, despite there being few to no restrictions throughout the US. This is much like the hyperbole used in the US to suggest that letting gays marry will result in people marrying their dogs or other pets. Unsubstantiated.

[Wetcoaster]

Well I`ve seen all the canned answers where people continuously cite the 2nd ammendment. That really isn`t an intelligent argument to me. That document was written hundreds of years ago and has no real basis today. There has to be a limit on arms, otherwise people could walk down the street with RPG`s tucked in their coats.

And don`t tell me the government has no right to tell you what to do. Because the government tells you what to do every day of your life. That`s what laws are.

I was just hoping to get a unique perspective from someone who clearly has a passion for guns. But I guess I`m not gonna get it. Too bad, cause you're gonna need a better argument than the second ammendment if you wanna keep your assault rifles.