Why Americans like rapid firing rifles so much? Because of personal defense or fear of tyranny?

I'm not talking about the little guns that you can hide in the glove box but those big ones that you have to hold with both hands. Why do you need them?

If its for personal defense, you're an idiot and if your entire defense strategy depends on having a big gun that can shoot lots if bullets quickly, you are missing chromosomes and are not responsible enough to have such a weapon.

If its because you're scared of tyranny, if I was some kind of dictator, I'd want you to have lots of guns simply because I could then send in my army with helicopters and long range weaponry.

When the constitution was written, guns were primitive compared to today. You couldn't go into a class room and kill 30 children in less than a minute with one. Also, the English were a problem back then but these days the English don't want to be in charge of USA. Seriously, if you offered us your country, we wouldn't want it.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

AlphaCuckTX · 56-60, M

Because we can mow down more whiny ass liberals before we have to reload.

bijouxbroussard · F

@AlphaCuckTX There are liberals who own guns now. Didn’t those GOP baseball players find that out the hard way ? 🤔

AlphaCuckTX · 56-60, M

@bijouxbroussard Only because they didn't feel like shooting up a school that day.

bijouxbroussard · F

@AlphaCuckTX Make up your mind. Are we anti-gun in your opinion, or not ?

AlphaCuckTX · 56-60, M

@bijouxbroussard I guess it depends on if you are just the classic whiny ass liberal, or if you are the maladjusted loner liberal who hates themselves and others more than they hate guns.
The only time a gun is dangerous is when it is in the wrong hands, thankfully most liberals recognize they are part of that group.

bijouxbroussard · F

@AlphaCuckTX And yet [b]you’re[/b] the one talking about “mowing” folks “down” and “reloading”...🤔

AlphaCuckTX · 56-60, M

I don't equate liberals with people.

bijouxbroussard · F

@AlphaCuckTX Wow. Well if you don’t even consider me a person, there’s no potential for dialogue.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@AlphaCuckTX "Guns are only dangerous in the wrong hands"?

Like card-carrying NRA members? Jealous husbands who are otherwise upstanding citizens? People keeping arms only for self-defense who get more depressed than they expected? Kids whose parents really thought they'd locked or hidden their guns? Young men who just want to show their friends their new piece?

Because those things lead to shootings every day. Or are those the wrong people? How do we know and who decides?

Sounds like some regulations might be in order.

AlphaCuckTX · 56-60, M

@Graylight The strictest gun control regulations in America are in the city of Chicago, it is also the place in America with the most shootings.
You people will never understand it has nothing to do with the NRA, more gun regulations, what kind of guns, or how man rounds they hold. It's not about taking guns from people who are law abiding citizens either.
It's people, there will always be bad people and the good people should have a right to choose to be able to defend themselves. Everyone else might as well be thrown to the wolves, because the Cops don't really care and their response time on he average is between 11 and 18 minutes depending on where you live.
Personally I don't think anyone, elected to office, or not, has the right to decide if I should have the ability to defend myself!

Graylight · 51-55, F

@AlphaCuckTX Chicago is a misleading and false example of gun control for a myriad of reasons. This has been discussed ad nauseam on the internet.

Neither I nor most people Advocate the complete ban of firearms. Ban does not equal regulation. We regulate nearly everything the American Consumer can buy or use. Why not the one thing causing unnecessary misdirected death and destruction?

You have the right to defend yourself, and SCOTUS has said as much. You also have the right to smoke. What's in question is your right to harm others on both counts.

AlphaCuckTX · 56-60, M

Which bring us back to your circular argument, because no one has the "Right" to harm others! That is just an excuse to try and impose more regulations on law abiding citizens that criminal elements will continue to ignore.
Whine all you want about how Chicago is not a valid example, case in point if it weren't nobody would be arguing over it.
Fortunately I live in a Castle state, so If I ever harm anyone with any of my guns it'll be in defense of my home, family, and self and I will not shoot to wound.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@AlphaCuckTX The only people arguing about Chicago are conservatives - the rest of the information is just that...information and data.

It is not a circular argument to say that the result of firearms is unintended destruction and death. That's a fact. If you have the right to bear arms and no one ever got hurt, this wouldn't be an argument. But guns lead to hurt and that cost the average taxpayer life, limb, loved ones and money.

It's the law-abiding citizens who are responsible for almost half of gun deaths. This fantasy of a boogyman lurking in every corner with firearms is just that; a fantasy.

I live in a Castle state, too. In fact, one that encourages ownership and use of firearms. And while I would protect my family, I can do so non-lethally. And no object I own, from the dollar store to a priceless artifact, will ever be worth more than a human life.