Here he goes : Obama: AK-47s belong on battlefield, not streets

The good thing is you guntards take yourselves out every year on average 600. Nice!

Look, if you retards want to play seal team six in your bdu costumes go join the military. The American public are growing tired of these monthly massacres.

Guns are limited to ten bullets in California with no problems. Why not do it nationwide? The assault weapons ban wasn't so bad.

I suppose if one of you gun nuts had a family member killed in Colorado you would be singing a different tune.

That's all I'm trying to say. I guess if one wants safe streets in America, he must be a Marxist with thoughts of pogroms in his head.

You can't look at this from the perspective of the UK. Maybe a gun ban works there. Maybe it doesn't.

But it won't work in America, and heres why.

The UK does not have a third world country directly to their southern border where any and all illegal goods will stream through freely.

A gun ban will do nothing but increase the amount of guns in criminals hands. They will actually be easier to get and will be readily available more cheaply when drug cartels realize they can sell them directly to American criminals and they will be the only supplier.

Jesus.

If anything, there should be LESS gun control each year, if that is his argument.

Argument: semi-automatic rifles, full auto weapons, high capcity magazines or belt fed weapons are military weapons and don't belong in the hands of civilians because it's unreasonable, and a threat to the Government being able to maintain order.

Reality check. The Military has:
FLIR equipped attack helicopters that have dozens of rockets, missiles and 30 mm autocannons with explosive shells.

Mortars, howitzers, guns, and other artillery including MLRS that can pepper a wide area like a cluster munition.

Thousands of jet aircraft that can carry more than their weight in precision guided missles and bombs, typically containing 500-2000lbs of explosives each. Most can be put into an area within 5m. Some munitions are cluster type which can blanket wide areas of many acres with shrapnel capable of causing instant death.

Poison gas which can maim, incapacitate and/or kill thousands almost instantly

Drones that can automatcally capture and relay tactical intelligence in real time.

Thousands of tanks that have armor so thick that it is unknown what type of weapon is needed to penetrate it.

thousands of APCs that can withstand any type of small arms fire.

Now tell me, how the HELL can you honestly say that civilians with a few semi-automatic rifles represent a threat to that?

Reality check on the oh god the govt is so powerful that no resistance is possible.


1. So governmment forces will bomb and use poison gas on their own population? Do you even understand the ramifications of that? Are they going to kill all 300 million americans?

2. Yes of course the tank is a fearsome weapon. If you are invading Russia. In a counter insurgency the tank is of limited use. Besides the fact that much of the terrain in America is unfriendly to tanks, the crew has to get out of the tank sometime. Last I read years ago the US had lost over a hundred M1A1 tanks in Iraq. All from insurgents and not the Iraqi army in the initial stages of the US invasion.

3. drones can be countered in various ways and the government can't cover three million square miles of terrain.

4. Helicopters are vulnerable to small arms fire. Not to mention the pilots and crew have to be based somewhere.

5. probably you should read up on insurgency, it isn'e about who has the most awesome weapons and the biggest baddest army.

6. An insurgency is a political problem as much as a military problem. Perhaps you could think on what that means. Maybe even read some history.

Ok...I just asked my husband what type of gun this kid used to defend himself. He said it was a 30-06 rifle. Hope that helps. He also said he doesn't give a damn what you think, as you weren't there on that scene, and he was! Can't argue with that;)