Excerpt:
Let me explain to you why it's important that I have a .50-caliber machine gun capable of firing 500 rounds per minute bolted to the top of my Corolla. I live in Washington. You do know that this is a dangerous city, right? A guy I know got mugged last month.
Not only that, it's entirely possible that while going around the Beltway, a commando team of Taliban fighters could come up behind me on their way to murder the president, and the only thing standing between them and disaster will be me. Not to mention that this one time, after I cut a guy off because he was in my blind spot, he gave me a really dirty look. If had had my .50-cal, you can bet he would have stayed a good distance back.
If you consider this reasoning rational, then you were probably also persuaded by the testimony Gayle Trotter of the Independent Women's Forum gave Wednesday to a Senate committee discussing potential legislation to place some relatively modest limits on guns.
This article is extremely biased, it tries to simplify and exaggerate Gayle's testimony, in an attempt to persaude readers that Gayle Trotter's views are extremist. - Carlo
ReplyDeleteI think that assault wepons should be banned to the public in the United States along with high-caliber magazines. If a person wants a gun for protection, there is no reason they should need an assault wepon. Instead a person can use a small hand gun.
ReplyDeleteSmall handguns have more deaths annualy then assault rifles. HAmmers have caused more deaths as well, and therefore are more dangerous than assault rifles.
DeleteVikrant Singh:
ReplyDeleteThis article is extremely biased towards gun rights. Gayle Trotter's opinions are showed as extremely unlogical. Even if Washington is an unsafe city you don't need a .50-caliber gun in order to protect yourself. There needs to be a certain extent to the amount of weapons you can have. A personal handgun can suffice for protection. Having large assault weapons can lead to nothing but more trouble.
Vikrant Singh, the author is being sarcastic, hes making fun of those with huge guns to defend themselves
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gaurav.
ReplyDeleteSo because the Taliban might not be invading we should strip law-abiding citizens of their second amendment right? People have the right to protect themselves and as a law-abiding citizen myself, I find it appalling that my basic rights could be so easily thrown away. And here's a question: Why not ban large 18-wheeler trucks too becasuse they are more than capable or taking the lives of hundreds of innocent people? And fertilizer because it can be used to make explosives? Alcohol which causes thousands of deaths every year? I can go on. Also, I saw in the news that a woman was hit with a Toyota van. Should we just ban that type of car just like you would ban one type of gun? And how many house invasions, burglaries, and other criminal acts were stopped and lives saved because a law abiding citizen had a gun to protect themselves and their family. The answer is many, way more than bias media cares to publiscize. And another thing, why will making guns illegal take them out of the hands of the criminals and killers? After 30 years, Judge Jeanne Pirro stated that she only saw ONE case where it was a registered gun used in a crime. All it will do is take guns out of the hands of the millions that do not abuse their right. Hey, lets make drugs like heroin and cocaine illegal! Oh wait, they are but how many people obtain, use, and kill themselves using these narcotics. MILLIONS! I would like to believe that the founding fathers were not idiots and I would prefer not to spit on them by completely dismissing something they so highly valued and understood the importance of.
ReplyDeleteThis...is erfect. I couldnt cpnvey this message any better.This is the logic people should use, not the garbage the media puts into society's brains. You people gotta listen and learn, not just go agaisnt guns cause they can kill.
Delete@Happily Ever After, I belive that not all guns should be banned. You are right that we have our second amendment, but assault rifles should be banned. I dissagree with your rant on banning trucks and Toyotas. Guns are made to hurt and to kill animals and/or people. Toyotas are not, trucks are not. There is no reason to have an assault rifle in your house...maybe a handgun. A handgun is perfect for self defense not a humungus assault wepon.
ReplyDelete@Justin Senzer, The point I was trying to make as I "ranted" about Toyotas and trucks was that there are so many things available to us that can be used to harm others but because very few actually abuse the access to these things and a majority of the country abides by the law, it is ridiculous to just start banning them.
ReplyDelete@Happily Ever After?, The thing is, cars are not made to be a weapon or to hurt people in any way. They are made to transport. Guns are made for self defense and/or to hurt people...not to transport people.
ReplyDelete@Justin Senzer But cars can be used as a deadly weapon. The point is that just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it should be banned. Taking guns away from people just leaves innocent and law-abiding citizens vulnerable. Do you honestly think that if guns are illegal people who want to get one illegally aren't going to be able to?
ReplyDeleteI do not think that all guns should be illegal. I think that assault rifles, semi-automatic wepons and large capacity magazines should be banned. Those items are not needed for self defense. A handgun is the perfect item for self defense. If Adam Lanza did not obtain the large capacity magazines he had during the Sandy Hook shooting because they were illegal, he would not have attempted to shoot all those kids. He could have been taken down a lot quicker if he had a gun that did not use a large capacity magazine because he would have needed to reload more often.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSandy Hook Is Not Fake Gaurav... Seriously
ReplyDeleteWhere is the proof. Videos by the same people who say Tupac and LeBron James sold their soul to the devil to be famous and calling that the illuminati. The actual illuminati was founded during the Renaissance to go against the Church's ideas. Galileo was in the illuminati.
ReplyDeleteThis is the point I was trying to make before when I said you cannot ban one car because it is larger or faster and kill more people as a result. And no offense, but who are you to decide what weapons a person needs to defend themselves? And again, I will repeat my point, law-abiding citizens have a right to these guns and use them only as the law permits and banning them will not prevent the people who would abuse the use of these guns from doing whatever they intend to do so the best thing we can do is protect possible victims. England has completely banned guns and they have the highest crime rate in Europe as well.
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason why you would need an assault rifle or semi-automatic wepon to defend yourseld from a robber for example. Once again, I am not saying that all guns should be banned, just ones that would be used by the military in a war. Those guns are not needed to protect youself from a robber.
ReplyDelete@Justin, That makes no sense whatsoever. Linda's posted mutiple analogys of what youre saying, and its illogical. Handguns are semiautomatic weapons by the way. Youve contradicted yourself. Also, automatic weapons are not allowed in almost all of America.
ReplyDelete@Justin, Handguns cause more deaths each year than any weapon you are trying to ban. Handguns are one of the top homicide weapons, even hammers are used for more murders.
ReplyDeleteIf you take away handguns then everyone will decide to use different weapons. You're just taking one way to complete the same outcome.
ReplyDelete@Mike, Exactly what im saying.
ReplyDeleteI Think that their should be some stricter laws placed on what guns we should and shouldn't have due to the fact that the fire rate of a gun doesn't only play a role in how deadly a gun can be.
ReplyDelete